A quasi-experimental study of the Multi-Agency Investigation & Support Team (MIST): A collaborative response to child sexual abuse.

To improve the holistic response to child sexual abuse in Perth, Western Australia, a group consisting of government and community support agencies developed a new co-located approach that combined support services with investigations, called the Multi-agency Investigation & Support Team (MIST). The model was comparable to the prominent Children's Advocacy Centre approach, with adaptations for Australian conditions. This study evaluated the fidelity with which this new program was delivered and examined whether it resulted in improved criminal justice, child protection, and service outcomes compared to existing practice. Drawing on service data linked across participating agencies the study found MIST was delivered with reasonable fidelity to its planned procedure, but with some challenges for delivery of the program due to the relative workload for staff in the MIST condition. The service demonstrated high levels of caregiver satisfaction with the response and high rates of children's engagement with therapy. A quasi-experimental comparison between MIST (n = 126) and Practice as Usual (n = 276) found MIST was significantly faster throughout the criminal justice and child protection processes, but the conditions did not differ in the rate of arrest or child protection actions. While embedding support services within the investigation process may not have a dramatic influence on criminal justice and child protection outcomes, the high rates of uptake of therapeutic services and parental satisfaction suggest other benefits that require future exploration.

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law / Descifrar los criterios de defensa de la vesania: estudio experimental de las pruebas de racionalidad y control en derecho penal

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N=477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed (AU)

Este estudio ha investigado la repercusión de los diversos cánones legales en las decisiones simuladas acerca de si un acusado es culpable o no por motivos de vesania. Una muestra de 477 estudiantes universitarios leyeron el resumen de caso relativo a un asesinato, pidiéndoseles luego que determinasen si había enajenación mental. Los casos diferían en cuanto a la condición del acusado (déficit de racionalidad o de control) y el criterio legal proporcionado a los jurados para que tomaran la determinación (Código penal modelo, McNaughten o McNaughten mas una determinación sobre el control). Se investigó el efecto de estas variables en la determinación de vesania. Los jurados rellenaron también cuestionarios que medían actitudes de individualismo y jerarquía y la percepción de los hechos del caso. Los resultados indican que con los criterios de demencia actuales los jurados no distinguen entre acusados con déficit de racionalidad y aquellos con déficit de control, aunque los criterios legales se lo exijan. Incluso los acusados que carecían de control fueron hallados culpables en la misma proporción con un criterio legal que disculpaba el déficit de racionalidad y con otro que excluía los déficit de control y racionalidad. Consiguió mejorarse añadiendo una prueba de control como defensa parcial a determinar tras la decisión sobre la racionalidad. Se comentan las implicaciones para la defensa de la enajenación mental en el sistema de justicia penal (AU)

Implementation of an enhanced probation program: evaluating process and preliminary outcomes.

Supervision, Monitoring, Accountability, Responsibility, and Treatment (SMART) is Kentucky's enhanced probation pilot program modeled after Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). SMART is proposed to decrease substance use, new violations, and incarceration-related costs for high-risk probationers by increasing and randomizing drug testing, intensifying supervision, and creating linkages with needed resources (i.e., mental health and substance use). SMART adopts a holistic approach to rehabilitation by addressing mental health and substance abuse needs as well as life skills for fostering deterrence of criminal behavior vs. punitive action only. A mixed methods evaluation was implemented to assess program implementation and effectiveness. Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (i.e., administration, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement/corrections) suggested successful implementation and collaboration to facilitate the pilot program. Quantitative analyses of secondary Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) data (grant Year 1: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013) also suggested program effectiveness. Specifically, SMART probationers showed significantly fewer: violations of probation (1.2 vs. 2.3), positive drug screens (8.6% vs. 29.4%), and days incarcerated (32.5 vs. 118.1) than comparison probationers. Kentucky's SMART enhanced probation shows preliminary success in reducing violations, substance use, and incarceration. Implications for practice and policy will be discussed.