Government agencies are turning to social media as a new way to engage with their constituencies. Practitioners in the trenches are excited about the possibilities – while some academics are less so.
Australia has become less compassionate, more punitive and more ready to blame individuals for their alleged failings since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
Innocent people do confess under interrogation to crimes they did not commit, even providing details about the crime. What leads them to falsely confess to very serious crimes?
Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have introduced restrictive “consorting” laws. But are the laws justified? Are they an efficient and effective way to combat organised crime?
Police are important, but not sufficient, in the crime-reduction effort. I have enormous faith in their abilities, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we need more of them.
As Queensland considers new laws to curb alcohol-fuelled violence in response to a one-punch death, several policy experiments that have occurred in recent years can provide valuable lessons.
Preventing crime before it happens, while saving resources, sounds like a great use of big data. But these calculated probabilities raise big questions about civil liberties.
Aboriginal people with mental and cognitive disability are managed mostly by police, courts, prison and hospitals. It’s costing us millions, when kinder and cheaper alternatives exist.
Police have become the default frontline response to Aboriginal people with mental and cognitive disabilities, setting this group up for a lifetime of ‘management’ by the criminal justice system.
Research suggests serious problems with the way Aboriginal women, particularly those with mental and cognitive disabilities, are “managed” by the criminal justice system.
Australia’s high rates of imprisonment and re-imprisonment of Aboriginal people with mental and cognitive disabilities is not only shameful, it is entirely predictable and preventable.