The first critical steps through the criminal justice system for persons with intellectual disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Accessible summary Sometimes, persons with learning disabilities have contacts with police because they are suspected of having committed an offence, such as shoplifting or having made too much noise on the street. We met with 14 individuals we will call informants, who know about this type of situation to ask them what happens to persons with learning disabilities when they are suspected of having committed an offence. The informants told us that the persons who called the police, the police officers and the lawyers can decide if the individual who is suspected will be released or will continue with through the justice system. If the person is known to the police or to the intellectual disability services, if the suspected offender has family members or friends who can support him then, chances are that he will benefit from some special attention. The problem is that very often, the persons who called the police, the police officers and the lawyers do not know that the suspected offender has a learning disability. The informants we met also said that the persons with learning disabilities should receive special assistance when they are in trouble with the law, and police officers and lawyers should know more about intellectual disabilities. When persons with intellectual disabilities want some help, they have to tell the police officers or lawyers. Otherwise, if the police officers and the lawyers do not know that the person has trouble completely understanding the situation, they cannot help when he or she goes through the stages following the arrest. Summary This paper deals with the initial steps of the judicial process for persons with intellectual disabilities who are suspected of a minor offense; a stage where plaintiffs, police officers, and crown attorneys make a series of decisions that will have a significant impact on the course of the judicial process. The objective of this study was twofold: (i) to document the criteria that influence dispositions by police officers and crown attorneys about persons with intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system (CJS), (ii) to report suggested improvements to better support them throughout the judicial process. Fourteen semi‐structured interviews were conducted with key informants from the CJS and from service and community organisations working in the field of intellectual disabilities. The results of this qualitative study indicate that decisions made and dispositions taken rely on a series of implicit criteria that influence the course of the subsequent judicial procedures against persons with an intellectual disability. Suggestions for improvement pertain to developing the screening of intellectual disability procedures, the provision of information to key actors about intellectual disabilities, a preference for the use of summons to appear over other types of procedures, and drafting memorandums of understanding between various organisations and police services regarding persons with intellectual disabilities. In conclusion, an emphasis must be put on screening and diversion procedures for persons with intellectual disabilities when appropriate.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».