What do you think?
Rate this book
Law in Context
Law, Process and Custody
When placed in custody by the courts, whether in prisons or special hospitals, offenders enter closed and powerful institutions where the decisions of others govern major aspects of their lives. Through an examination of decision-making in relation to the treatment, transfer, discipline and release of prisoners and offender patients, this book reveals an important but neglected area of criminal justice, and seeks to assess the ability of the law to facilitate the proper exercise of public power through the regulation of 'process'.
Drawing upon research from a wide variety of sources, together with the findings of the 1991 Woolf Report on prison disturbances and the 1992 Report on Ashworth Special Hospital, Genevra Richardson looks at the way in which the policies affecting prisoners and offender patients are both formulated and applied, and compares patient practice with the possible demands of 'full process'.
Law, Process and Custody provides an excellent resource for students studying public law, criminal justice and the administration of the penal system.
Drawing upon research from a wide variety of sources, together with the findings of the 1991 Woolf Report on prison disturbances and the 1992 Report on Ashworth Special Hospital, Genevra Richardson looks at the way in which the policies affecting prisoners and offender patients are both formulated and applied, and compares patient practice with the possible demands of 'full process'.
Law, Process and Custody provides an excellent resource for students studying public law, criminal justice and the administration of the penal system.
342 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1993
1 person is currently reading
1 person want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
June 26, 2018The copy in the possession of this reviewer is published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
There's a certain perkiness to the beginning of this book, written in 1993, which seems to contrast rather nicely with the morbidity of the subject matter, and one wonders what Prof Richardson could possibly have known at the time of publication.
On page 7, we have: 'The notion of process, however, needs some explanation.' So, to what extent could a few words be added to the mise-en scène along the lines of: processes in general terms may seek to take conflicting contentions within a common framework for a third party referee/office/agency to weigh in the balance for execution and resolution to the original source point, without compromising the essential raison d'être of the forthcoming text? In more general terms, to what extent might such an analysis help to address and resolve other 6-5 difficulties going on off-pitch? What else may be significant in this context?
On page nine, we have: 'The Prison Act 1952 makes the Home Secretary responsible for the maintenance and organisation of prisons and requires him (we have yet to have a female Home Secretary) to report annually to Parliament.'
And on page eleven, we have: 'When the creation of a prison ombudsman was considered by the May Inquiry the Home Office argued strongly that such a figure would interfere with the Home Secretary's direct responsibility to Parliament.'
And breathe.
On p.74, we have: 'The May Report's suggested amendment to rule 1 was apparently ignored, and the redrafting recommended by the Woolf Report has yet to happen. Instead, the purposes have been formulated by administrative decision, with little public debate and even less Parliamentary involvement.' So, how concerned should we be about that?
So, the section 1-Privileges on pp92-4 appears to be horribly something or other in inverted commas, convoluted perhaps, so how might this be written better to better describe, what, the availability of, what, comfort artefacts from a discretionary resource pool traded off against the maintenance of even more control over the prison population? What else appears to be significant in this context? Would it be worth pausing at this point to re-consider what is sought by and from incarceration (taking into account the argument in the first paragraph of p.150; and also those on pp312-4 in 1-Primary legislation)? What else appears to be generally significant in the paragraph on pp122-3, attached to footnote 30? And also on p125 in the paragraph attached to footnotes 39-40 within inverted commas and without (to inc presumably the modalities of a bureaucratic-awful model)? Separately, on p125 to what extent are resource allocation arguments masking difficulties of the fundamentally obstructive type? What else may be particularly significant in this context?
pp96-100 - 3-Correspondence, access to lawyers, and family ties - to inc how are the fundamental rights of the incarcerated secured and to what extent is the UN convention against torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment front and centre of prison practice (and also wrt 1-The Statutory Criteria on p293)? What else may be significant in this context? [the point is made on p101 in the paragraph attached to footnote 110]. And considering the paragraph attached to footnote 41 on pp125-6, to what extent does seemingly arbitrary decision making originate from excessive-need-to-control-the-thing-over-there neurosis? What else may be significant in this context (taking into account the arguments on p127 in the paragraph attached to footnotes 45-46)?
On p123 - the paragraph attached to footnotes 31-33 - the conversation about subject matter needs to be handled carefully at,in an appropriate time,setting.
On p126 - the paragraph beginning - While the giving of reasons is essential - which arrangements are available to strike a proper balance between the maintenance of security, control and order? What else may be significant in this context?
On p171 - the conclusions begin: 1992 marks a watershed in prison discipline. Which is interesting. Elsewhere in this section, to what extent should concerned citizens be concerned with any loss of liberty as default setting in any court system without proper representation? What else may be significant in this context?
There's a certain perkiness to the beginning of this book, written in 1993, which seems to contrast rather nicely with the morbidity of the subject matter, and one wonders what Prof Richardson could possibly have known at the time of publication.
On page 7, we have: 'The notion of process, however, needs some explanation.' So, to what extent could a few words be added to the mise-en scène along the lines of: processes in general terms may seek to take conflicting contentions within a common framework for a third party referee/office/agency to weigh in the balance for execution and resolution to the original source point, without compromising the essential raison d'être of the forthcoming text? In more general terms, to what extent might such an analysis help to address and resolve other 6-5 difficulties going on off-pitch? What else may be significant in this context?
On page nine, we have: 'The Prison Act 1952 makes the Home Secretary responsible for the maintenance and organisation of prisons and requires him (we have yet to have a female Home Secretary) to report annually to Parliament.'
And on page eleven, we have: 'When the creation of a prison ombudsman was considered by the May Inquiry the Home Office argued strongly that such a figure would interfere with the Home Secretary's direct responsibility to Parliament.'
And breathe.
On p.74, we have: 'The May Report's suggested amendment to rule 1 was apparently ignored, and the redrafting recommended by the Woolf Report has yet to happen. Instead, the purposes have been formulated by administrative decision, with little public debate and even less Parliamentary involvement.' So, how concerned should we be about that?
So, the section 1-Privileges on pp92-4 appears to be horribly something or other in inverted commas, convoluted perhaps, so how might this be written better to better describe, what, the availability of, what, comfort artefacts from a discretionary resource pool traded off against the maintenance of even more control over the prison population? What else appears to be significant in this context? Would it be worth pausing at this point to re-consider what is sought by and from incarceration (taking into account the argument in the first paragraph of p.150; and also those on pp312-4 in 1-Primary legislation)? What else appears to be generally significant in the paragraph on pp122-3, attached to footnote 30? And also on p125 in the paragraph attached to footnotes 39-40 within inverted commas and without (to inc presumably the modalities of a bureaucratic-awful model)? Separately, on p125 to what extent are resource allocation arguments masking difficulties of the fundamentally obstructive type? What else may be particularly significant in this context?
pp96-100 - 3-Correspondence, access to lawyers, and family ties - to inc how are the fundamental rights of the incarcerated secured and to what extent is the UN convention against torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment front and centre of prison practice (and also wrt 1-The Statutory Criteria on p293)? What else may be significant in this context? [the point is made on p101 in the paragraph attached to footnote 110]. And considering the paragraph attached to footnote 41 on pp125-6, to what extent does seemingly arbitrary decision making originate from excessive-need-to-control-the-thing-over-there neurosis? What else may be significant in this context (taking into account the arguments on p127 in the paragraph attached to footnotes 45-46)?
On p123 - the paragraph attached to footnotes 31-33 - the conversation about subject matter needs to be handled carefully at,in an appropriate time,setting.
On p126 - the paragraph beginning - While the giving of reasons is essential - which arrangements are available to strike a proper balance between the maintenance of security, control and order? What else may be significant in this context?
On p171 - the conclusions begin: 1992 marks a watershed in prison discipline. Which is interesting. Elsewhere in this section, to what extent should concerned citizens be concerned with any loss of liberty as default setting in any court system without proper representation? What else may be significant in this context?
Displaying 1 of 1 review