The Well-Being of Community-Residing Not Criminally Responsible Patients: Recognizing Ethical Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, community-residing not criminally responsible (CR-NCR) patients are provided treatment to reduce their public safety risk and assist their reintegration into society; however, it is unclear whether the social circumstances of these patients sufficiently support this rehabilitative process. Previous research findings suggest deficiencies exist in CR-NCR patients’ well-being, but further work is required to better understand how their circumstances are socially arranged and to examine the pertinent ethical dimensions.Using the theoretical work of Powers and Faden (2006; 2019), the empirical aim of this critical ethnography was to explore the lives of CR-NCR patients for the purposes of developing an understanding of the interplay between the social factors present in the community settings in which they live and their well-being. The corresponding normative aims include examining theoretically the adequacy of patients’ socially arranged well-being, elucidating the justness of their circumstances, and considering the implications of this on their societal reintegration. A total of 23 go-along interviews with CR-NCR patients (N=10) were conducted. These data, along with field notes and relevant documents, were analyzed using a multi-stage, iterative process of deconstructing and reconstructing meaning, with ethical evaluations supported by the practice of reflective equilibrium. The findings reveal that CR-NCR participants were situated unfairly in circumstances that almost invariably resulted in deficiencies in their well-being and undermined their efforts to reintegrate. Recommended remedial changes include enhancing the respectful, patient-centred, and recovery-oriented aspects of care. Further studies are needed to more comprehensively understand the impact of social arrangements on the lives of CR-NCR patients and to examine in greater detail the consequences these arrangements have on the rehabilitative aims of the forensic mental health system.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".