Comparative outcomes for a national cohort of persons convicted of murder, with and without serious mental illness, and those found not guilty by reason of insanity on a murder charge: A 25‐year follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI) is common among persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, yet little is known about how this affects rehabilitation, prospects of parole, or risk to the community. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes for a national cohort of offenders charged with murder who were either convicted and sentenced to life in prison or placed on a forensic hospital order. METHODS: The 386 cases of murder charges in New Zealand between 1988 and 2000 were divided into three groups: perpetrators without SMI sentenced to life imprisonment (n = 313), perpetrators with SMI but sentenced to life imprisonment (n = 32), or those with such illness and found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) who received a forensic hospital order (n = 41). Access to rehabilitative interventions, time to release, reoffending, and recall to prison or hospital were examined. RESULTS: Being in prison but having severe mental illness delayed release on parole but did not increase the risk of criminal recidivism or recall to prison. Hospital order patients were a demographically different group; they were released to the community earlier and had a lower rate of criminal recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some evidence that incarceration periods for life-sentenced homicide perpetrators with SMI may be reduced without increasing community risk if hospital transfer and/or more targeted interventions are provided in prison. It also provides further evidence that persons found NGRI after a charge of murder have a relatively low risk of criminal recidivism. The stigma that may sometimes attach to such offenders is unwarranted, if it relies on concerns about risk of reoffending.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".