assessing community views of prison and prison alternatives using a deliberative research (citizens...

Assessing community views of prison and prison alternatives using a deliberative research (Citizens Jury) approach

Tony Butler, Jill Guthrie, Paul Simpson, Jocelyn Jones, Michael Doyle, Corinne Walsh

Acknowledgements

Research Reference Group: Brendan Church, Susan Helyar, John McKenzie, Sarah Mumme & Tammy Solonec

Research team:, Tony Butler (UNSW), Jill Guthrie (ANU), Jocelyn Jones (Curtin), Michael Doyle (UNSW), Corinne Walsh (ANU), Melissa Lovell (ANU)

Citizens Jury facilitators: Gavin Mooney, Stephen Mugford

“Expert-witnesses”: Melanie Schwartz, Mick Dodson, Shane Phillips, Luke Freudenstein, David Greenberg, Sophie Davison, Michael Levy, Matthew Willis, Robyn Holder, Ken Marslew, Jacqueline Joudo-Larsen & Maria Borzycki

Jury participants and policymakers who gave their thoughts and time

The Lowitja Institute – Small Project Grant program (#SG013)

Overview

• Background

• Project aims and methods

• Findings from Citizens Juries

• Findings from policymaker interviews

• Summary and implications

Background

• Political responses privilege [perceived popularity] of ‘tough on crime’ approaches over other policy considerations¹

• Beyond the spectacles of political populism and ‘shock jock’ media, what do the community think?

• Research captures ‘top of head’ responses to survey questions – responses typically punitive towards offenders²

• What types of research outcomes should inform policy?– ‘top of head’ or considered, deliberative-based outcomes?

¹ Roberts et al. (2002) Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries, Oxford University Press. ²Indermaur et al (2012). Punishment & Society

Assessing community views to inform policy: opinion surveys vs deliberative methods

Opinion surveys (quantitative) Deliberative methods (qualitative)

In/mis/un-informed views(‘top of the head’ )

Critically informed views

Can tap into assumptions, stereotypes and prejudices of participants that may be neither accurate nor relevant

Participants reflect on their own position’ and the position of others through critical dialogue with each other and “knowledge producers/presenters”

Findings claim to be representative of wider community/population

Representation/inclusivity issues

Acting as individual concerned for themselves

Acting as a ‘citizen’, on behalf of a community or as planners acting on behalf of a community

Do think Would think

Background

• Alternative methodologies to ‘top-of-the-head’ surveys are needed to inform justice policy, as such surveys present shallow, unconsidered public opinion that have no place in policy development and reform¹

• “Opinion polls…are so obviously defective in methodology that they belong to the world of infotainment”²

• Very little deliberative research on what the public think about incarceration and alternatives to incarceration

¹Green, DA. (2006) British Journal of Criminology ²Chief Justice Murray Gleeson (Oct 2004) Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, Adelaide

Project aims

Phase 1 – Citizens Juries

Elicit the principles and preferences of a critically informed community with respect to principles & strategies for dealing with offenders

Phase 2 – Policymaker interviews

Assess the extent to which the results from the Citizens Juries might influence the thinking of senior policymakers

Test Citizens Jury methodology

Phase 1Citizens Juries

What are Citizens Juries?

Broad objective

To elicit information about the public’s critically informed views on a particular subject and then present the findings to a wider audience: policymakers, researchers, other stakeholders

Method

Tasks of jury

1. What principles should underpin the treatment of offenders

2. Provide recommendations on how to enact these principles

Method

Method

Citizens Juries

• A randomly selected group of citizens (10-20 per jury)• Various kinds of ‘expert-witnesses’ present to jury• Jury question expert-witnesses • Jury deliberate amongst themselves (with facilitator)• Recommendations produced & written up as a report• Jury members evaluate recommendation report

Developed and overseen by Research Reference Group

Research Reference Group

• National Congress of Australia's First Peoples• WA and ACT Council of Social Services• NSW/ACT Aboriginal Legal Services

Roles• Prevent any agenda (“bias”) of co-inquirers (i.e.

research team, facilitator, funders)• Scrutinise and inform research processes• Review, endorse and disseminate project findings

Citizens Juries

Participant/Jury member selection

• 900 people randomly selected from electronic phone directory (300 per Sydney, Canberra and Perth)

• ‘Expression of Interest’ posted with demographic form

• 51 selected: 15 people & 2 reserves for each jury

• Final selection to reflect cross-section of community, by gender, age, ethnic and cultural background, socio-economic status

Expert-witnesses

Sydney Canberra PerthAustralian Institute of Criminology researcher

Australian Institute of Criminology researcher


Forensic psychiatrist Justice Health Director Consultant research psychiatrist

Indigenous youth diversion program founders

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

Justice Reinvestment researcher

Justice Reinvestment researcher – social inclusion

Justice Reinvestment researcher– social inclusion

Victims of crime representative


Expert-witnesses

Sydney Canberra PerthAustralian Institute of Criminology researcher



Forensic psychiatrist Justice Health Director Consultant research psychiatrist

Indigenous youth diversion program founders

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody - counsel

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody - counsel

Justice Reinvestment researcher

Justice Reinvestment researcher – social inclusion

Justice Reinvestment researcher– social inclusion



Deliberation

Common discussion themes• What the purpose of prison is• The high cost of incarceration • What is meant by prevention• Retribution versus rehabilitation• Serious versus minor crimes• The striking problem of high Aboriginal incarceration • Reasons for offending• Who needs to be compensated for crime committed• The issue of fairness • Reconciliation between offender and victim• Education, social/family environment and social exclusion.

Jury outcomes

1. Principles that should underpin the treatment of offenders

2. Recommendations on how to enact principles

Jury recommendations - Principles

• Equity and fairness– taking into account the social, cultural and economic

circumstances of the offender and the crime committed – Fairness and justice to victim

• Prevention focus– Address social and economic causes of offending,

education, and give sense of belonging

• Community involvement (Sydney and Perth)– In informing, assessing, determining how society should

treat offenders

1. Non-incarceration options

• Strongly supported across all cities

• Recognition of deprivation of liberty for some (Canberra and Perth jurors)

Jury recommendations for enacting principles

2. Services and programs to address the social & economic determinants of crime

• Physical and mental health services• Community connections / involvement programs• Drug education and treatment• Anger management• Vocation and education options• Cultural specific programs• Offender family support • Mentor programs


3. Platform to raise public awareness, dialogue and sanctioning of non-incarceration options

• Media campaign and putting pressure on governments (Sydney jurors)

• National referendum (Perth jurors)


4. Funding

• “Services, programs and knowledge there, just need the funding” (Canberra jurors)

• Justice Reinvestment interpreted as a funding model (Sydney and Perth jurors)


Phase 2Policymaker interviews

Method

• Invitations sent to 11 senior public office bearers• If unable to participate, appointed delegate was sought • 5 agreed to participate (includes one delegate)• Semi-structured, in-depth interviews • Interviews anonymous to allow policymakers to talk ‘off

the record’• 2 parts of interview

1) existing views on incarceration and alternatives

2) views after considering Citizens Jury summary report

Findings

1. Existing views and endorsements of prison alternatives

2. Responses to Citizens Jury (CJ) findings

3. Degrees of change in views after viewing CJ findings

4. Interpreting degree of change in policymaker views

FindingsExisting knowledge and endorsement for alternatives

Justice Reinvestment – viewed positively but issues around meaning and implementation

I do feel that gaps in JR lay in the practical side of it. You know, I feel there’s a very good, strong academic case to be made, but see in the position that I do I have to be able to convince the community.

– ACT policymaker A

FindingsResponses to Citizens Jury findings

Positive and less punitive than expected

In a way it is more positive than I expected, although in a way that is was what one might expect out of a citizen jury, where people who perhaps didn’t have the knowledge before, and who were led through it by experts, were able to embrace something that they perhaps didn’t know so much about before, or you know make a more informed view. So I’m pleasantly surprised. – ACT policymaker A


Prevention and cultural change in policing

I think it’s [prevention] probably where policing is going, but it’s a complete cultural change to what we do, because we are taught to be response motivated … our training is about being response motivated, so it’s a complete flip to have police think about prevention, to have a prevention focus. Absolutely complete change. And we haven’t really fully grasped it.

– ACT policymaker B


Importance and challenge of considering victims

…there’s a lot of domestic violence offences, there’s a lot of disquiet about the use of those alternative sentencing mechanisms … because of concerns about re-victimisation, re-traumatisation of victims and so on … I think there’s some practicalities that we have to get to grips with … – ACT policymaker C

FindingsDegree of change of views after jury findings revealed

Some change: better understanding of community attitudes

…the view of the juries would appear to be perhaps more liberal in their views of sentencing than I would have anticipated … - ACT policymaker A

I think where it has changed my perspective is probably in the sense of my understanding of community acceptance of these kinds of approaches. I would be wary of the community’s willingness to accept some of these options, seeing them as the soft option … in that sense it probably changes my comfort level, rather than ... my view on whether it’s the right thing to do or not, if that makes sense … [I’m] feeling more optimistic about the scope and bringing people on-board with it [Justice Reinvestment]. – ACT policymaker B

Findings Interpreting lack of change in policymaker views

Study limitations• Small jury sample sizes• Representativeness / inclusivity of jurors• Relatively short deliberation period• Absence of a detailed CJ findings presented to policymakers

May have impacted on their acceptance of the Citizens jury process and thus their capacity for change in thinking

FindingsInterpreting lack of change in policymaker views

Political concerns• Selling alternatives to community and Cabinet

I need to be able to take the community on that journey, there is a level of community acceptance that it’s possible, that it is money well spent, that I’m not just being soft on crime, etcetera … And I think that would be fatal, or potentially fatal and have significant consequences for whether it’s Justice Reinvestment or alternatives to incarceration, if we were to get too far ahead of the community. It’s that fine line in leadership.

- ACT policymaker B


Political concerns• Risk-taking in current political economy

… these days’ governments across the world are feeling the pinch economically. The notion of investing very heavily from a government perspective in a lot of these programs is something that if the economy was better they’d probably be more likely to do, but at a time when things are tight do they run the risk and say, “Well, look, we can shut three prisons, take the money that we put in there into these sorts of programs, we’ll take the risk”. It’s a social experiment. If it goes wrong it’ll cost them everything, they won’t be in government.

– NSW policymaker A


Political concerns

• Risk-taking in current political economy

… policing, like every type of service industry, is pressured by resources, and particularly now we’re going into a period probably over the next few years, and probably longer, where like a lot of government departments and services are getting pressured in a sense of … provide what you need to provide, and really cut away that excess type work. Prevention is probably seen as excess type work …

– ACT policymaker B

Findings Interpreting lack of change in policymaker views

Political concerns• Risk-taking in current political economy

… The way to step around that [electoral cycle “short term-ism”] is perhaps look at some means by which you can step outside the government’s funding cycle and go to a private enterprise model, see if there’s some way that you can make it good economic sense to go into a Justice Reinvestment program with the private enterprise, as has been the case, and you’re aware of these in the U.S., where you know private enterprise will take on the risk, invest the capital in managing a reoffending program where they’re looking to drive down recidivism.

– NSW policymaker A

Summary and implications

Summary• Given the opportunity to deliberate with others on the

wider knowledge and perspectives about offenders and responses to offending, jurors were less concerned with punitive ‘hard on crime’ approaches, preferring preventative approaches and prison alternatives

• Jury recommendations contrast with quantitative surveys & polling that suggest most Australians hold punitive attitudes towards offenders


Summary• Policymaker views generally did not change as a

result of reviewing what a critically informed community wanted

• Study limitations aside, policymakers spoke of the political and economic risks

• ‘Political initiative’ over ‘democracy at work’?¹

¹ Beckett, K. 1997, Making Crime Pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics, Oxford University Press, New York.


Implications for policy reform towards prison alternatives• Develop and expand research on, and opportunities

for, deliberative, critically informed public engagement

• Need to consider and address the practical and political risks faced by policymakers in progressing discourse on prison alternatives

• A ‘critical mass’ of an informed public favouring prison alternative models maybe required to reverse the idea of political risk - whereby not to invest in prison alternatives becomes the political risk

Thank you

[email protected]

assessing community views of prison and prison alternatives using a deliberative research (citizens...

Documents