|
| |
Register your interest with Justice Action.
Do you have a
• Special interests?
• Time available?
• Have Resources/skills that can offered/donated
• Want regular email/newsletter contact?
Click here !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beyond Bars - Inquiry Into Treatment of Women |
|
|
Submission to the Anti Discrimination Commissioner for an Inquiry into the Discrimination Experienced by Women Prisoners within the Criminal Justice System in New South Wales
Written and Submitted by:
Members of the Beyond Bars Alliance NSW
Kat Armstrong, Vicki Chartrand & Dr. Eileen Baldry
May 2005
The Purpose of this Submission
On 20th July 2004, the Beyond Bars Alliance wrote to the Commissioner of the Department of Corrective Services (DCS) NSW, the Attorney General of NSW, the Commissioner of Police of NSW, and to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (see Appendix I) seeking an inquiry into the treatment of women prisoners in NSW.
Beyond Bars Alliance is concerned about systemic discrimination on the
basis of sex that is faced by women throughout the criminal justice and
prison systems. We are concerned about discrimination on the basis of race faced by Aboriginal women and other women marginalized by race.
In addition, we are concerned about discrimination on the basis of
impairment that is experienced by women prisoners with cognitive,
mental and physical disabilities.
This complaint is made on the grounds that the manner in which women
prisoners are treated is discriminatory in contravention to several of
the prohibited grounds articulated in the Anti Discrimination Act 1991
and in Federal anti-discrimination legislation and Human Rights
Conventions. Beyond Bars Alliance received a response from the
Attorney General’s Department stating that the letter was being handed
on to another unit for consideration. A letter was also received from
the NSW Police Department stating that NSW police follow a range of
policies, programs, and training programs, as well as being involved in
various community liaison partnerships with other agencies to assist in
countering discrimination against women in general. The Anti
Discrimination board of NSW acknowledged receipt of the letter and
stated that the information provided by the Beyond Bars Alliance would
be placed on file and that they looked forward to receiving any further
correspondence. There has been no response from the NSW Department of Corrective Services.
In addition to the letter supplied to all the Departments mentioned
above, on the 20th July 2004, we referred them all to a number of
additional government and academic documents. These documents chronicle the nature and extent of the discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and disability.
Furthermore, strip searching and use of the Mum Shirl Unit at Mulawa
Correctional Centre are experienced in a discriminatory manner by women
prisoners in New South Wales.
The purpose of this submission is to request the Anti-Discrimination
Commissioner to conduct an investigation under s.155(2)(b) of the
Anti-Discrimination Act (ADA). Beyond Bars Alliance contends that
there is systemic discrimination on the basis of race, sex and
disability in NSW policing practices and also in the administration of
women’s prisons.1 Women prisoners experience direct2 and indirect3 discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, and impairment.4
Police Practices and Systemic Discrimination
Systemic discrimination consists of individual and collective acts,
structural processes and administrative practices that contribute to
the overall discrimination against a particular group of people. In
the case of the NSW criminal justice system, women are subject to such
systemic discrimination on the basis of their sex, race and disability.
As gatekeepers to and frontline workers of the criminal justice system,
the NSW Police Department contributes to this discriminatory process
through the criminalization of women, and particularly poor,
marginalised, and racialised women. Accordingly, the
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which applies to the police service as a
provider of ‘goods and services’, identifies systemic discrimination as
unlawful, including discrimination based on race, sex and disability.
Social and Economic Disadvantage
Worldwide, women are a disadvantaged group. The gap between women and
men living in poverty has continued to widen in the past decade; a
phenomenon commonly referred to as the “feminization of poverty”5. In NSW, women are also subject to the feminization of poverty.
In February 2003, the average weekly earning of all women in the NSW
workforce, including part-time and casual workers, was $591.30,
approximately 64.5% of the average weekly earning of men. Additionally, 60% of families living in NSW public housing are headed by women.6
In 2001, the average gross income for Aboriginal peoples in NSW was
$364 per week, approximately 62% of the gross income of non-Aboriginal
peoples. For Aboriginal women, the unemployment rate was 14.9% compared with 7.7% of non-Aboriginal women.7
Aboriginal women and women with mental health concerns are
over-represented in the criminal justice system as they are more often
arrested for poverty related offences. The criminalisation of women
who are at a social disadvantage clearly represents an inherent and
prima facie case of discrimination.
Policing and Systemic Discrimination Based on Sex
Women, by virtue of their social and economic disadvantage, often find
themselves reliant on the services and support of the state. As a result, the state becomes increasingly more involved in the everyday lives of women. Consequently, the greater the disadvantage, the greater the state becomes involved in their affairs.
This increased intrusion into and scrutiny of the lives of
disadvantaged women often results in their subsequent criminalisation.
As noted above, socially and economically disadvantaged women generally
tend to reside in affordable public housing or low-income
neighbourhoods or are homeless and are, consequently, more heavily
policed. This reality further contributes to an increased intrusion of
the state into the lives of women and to their subsequent fine, charge,
arrest, and/or revocation of community, bail or parole orders. Once
women have been arrested and charged, the possibility of leaving the
system is limited and, if released, re-arrest is more likely. In the
twenty-year period between the mid-sixties and the mid-eighties, state
government spending on police increased 172% as compared to, for
example, only a 41% increase for housing and community amenities.8
Financial resources that could have been afforded to women’s services
to alleviate the symptoms of poverty are adopted for more invasive
measures of control and surveillance.
Policing and Systemic Discrimination Based on Race
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Section 9:
It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction,
exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or
national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying
or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal
footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political,
economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
The Human Rights and Equal opportunity Commission (HREOC) of Australia
made amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 s9(1A) to include
‘indirect discrimination on the basis of race’ as grounds for complaint.
In NSW, the Select Committee into the Increase in Prison Population
found that in 2001 the most significant contributing factor to the
increase in incarceration of Aboriginal women was the increase in
remand. In 1991, the National Inquiry into Racist Violence reported
various and numerous incidents of “intrusive and intimidatory” policing
against Aboriginal peoples in general. This includes unwarranted entry
into households, physical abuse and discriminatory policing in public
places and at private functions.9 The inquiry also provided
significant evidence of the maltreatment of Aboriginal women and girls,
which included racist and sexist verbal and physical abuse. Allegations of sexual abuse and rape have also been made by Aboriginal women while in police custody10 and today, Aboriginal women often report similar treatment.
A 1985–1986 study in NSW found that although Aboriginal peoples
represented 1.5% of the overall population, they comprised 47% of
police arrests.11 A more recent study found that Aboriginal peoples
were over-represented among the population held in police cells by a
factor of 19.12 In NSW, Aboriginal peoples overall represented 14% of those in police custody.
Research carried out by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
also shows that one of the main reasons for the over-representation of
Aboriginal peoples in NSW prisons is due to high arrest rates.13 In
2001, more than 6% of the Aboriginal women arrested were subsequently
charged and appeared in court, compared to 0.7% of the overall number
of women arrested and charged.14
Policing and Systemic Discrimination Based on Disability
Women and girls with a disability experience discrimination in
significantly different ways, such as through forced
institutionalisation, denial of control over their bodies, physical
restraint, medical exploitation, humiliation and harassment and lack of
financial control.15
Given the lack of sensitivity and awareness of the issues faced by
women with mental, cognitive and/or physical disabilities, women with
disabilities often find it difficult to deal with the police. Often the
evidence they provide is not seen as credible or the police are not
skilled in addressing or working with people with such disabilities. The Anti-Discrimination Board receives a significant number of complaints against the NSW Police Service related to disability.
In the years 2000/01 to 2001/02, the total number of complaints
received by the Board increased from 40 to 54; twenty-four of those
complaints, or 44%, were related to discrimination based on disability.
Furthermore, section 127 of the Police Act requires that complaints be made in writing.
However, women and those with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities
as well as non-indigenous culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD)
may not be able to comply with this requirement due to mental, physical
or language limitations which, as a result, limits the number of
complaints. Many women, therefore, do not have equal access to the complaint process.
The Anti-Discrimination Board has indicated that there are many
instances where individuals are unable to lodge complaints about the
discriminatory treatment they have suffered and that many complaints of
alleged discrimination, harassment, vilification and victimisation by
the NSW Police Service go unreported.
Women with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities often have what is referred to as “deficits in adaptive behaviour”.
This refers to limited communication skills, which includes limitations
in both writing and speech, ability to sustain friendships, ability to
engage in recreational and social activities, ability to work, manage
finances or to run a household.16 The situation for these women
contributes not only to their inability to lodge complaints, but also
to ably manage themselves once in police custody. This can result in harsher custodial treatment towards these women as they may be consider uncooperative or unmanageable.
NSW Police Act
In the Review of the Police Act 1990 (NSW), the Anti-Discrimination
Board (2002) recommended that it should be made clear that NSW police
services should be provided in a non-discriminatory manner and in a
manner which respects the diversity of the people of NSW. “Research
evidence suggests that disproportionate use of police power is, at
least in part, a product of discrimination, and that the abuse of power
is most discriminatory where police autonomy and discretion are
greatest”.17 At present, police have authority to use various
legislative provisions to search persons and premises without warrant
if it is for a specific purpose or if obtaining a warrant would result
in the destruction of evidence or cause harm or injury. This approach
to policing places priority of surveillance and control over individual
rights and collective liberty and continues to contribute to the
overall discrimination of women based on race, sex and disability.
NSW Courts
,Women in NSW are more likely to appear before the courts for theft and
deception offences, while men are more often incarcerated for offences
related to violence.18 The number of women incarcerated for drug
offences increased 40% between 1994 and 2003 and many researchers
provide strong evidence of the link between drug or alcohol related
offences with sexual and physical abuse against women in Australia and
as well as in other countries.19 These trends are further evidence of
the discrimination within the criminal justice system as these offences
are tied to the social and economic disadvantage faced by women.
In New South Wales, Aboriginal women constitute 2% of the female
population20 and yet represent approximately 32% of the total NSW
women’s prison population.21 In the five years between 1997 and 2001, about 25,000 Aboriginal people appeared in a NSW court for criminal offence charges.22
This rate represents 28.6% of the NSW Aboriginal population and is 4.4
times higher than the rate for the NSW population as a whole.
Aboriginal women appear in court on criminal charges about a third as
often as their male counterparts and, in 2001, more than 6% of the
Aboriginal women’s population appeared in court compared to 0.7% of the
NSW women population as a whole. Furthermore, Aboriginal women are also imprisoned at a very much higher rate than the general population. About 1.6 per cent of Aboriginal women in NSW aged 20-24 received a prison sentence in 2001.23 This rate is 18 times higher than the corresponding figure for women in the same age category.
Women actually pose very little threat to the community. For example,
in 2003, of the 18,799 women who were found guilty in the NSW local
courts, only 8 were convicted of homicide and related offences.24 It is important to further highlight that many acts of violence are against abusive partners.
As numerous research studies have found, many of the victims killed by
women are known to the women either as a husband, de facto partner,
relative or friend and often occurs in the context of abuse by partners
or self-defence during arguments or fights. Furthermore, there is a lack of emergency and support housing for women who want to escape domestic violence.
In NSW in 2002-2003, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
(SAAP) revealed that 67.1% of women seeking assistance were doing so in
order to escape domestic violence. Those who are turned away usually
had to return to their environments of abuse for lack of any other
alternative shelter available to them.25 This further suggests that,
on the whole, women pose the least amount of threat to the community
upon release and should therefore be given all opportunities to return
to their communities as quickly as possible. It is suggested that
women, and Aboriginal women in particular, are both directly and
indirectly discriminated against by the courts and the correctional
system.
The Experience of Prison/Remand for Women in NSW
Women on remand represent a higher proportion (30%) than their male counterparts (18%).26
Given that women are charged with fewer serious and violent crimes than
men, the number of women on remand should also be proportionally
smaller to the number of men. Aboriginal women are again over-represented amongst women on remand.27
Furthermore, remand prisoners are classified by the Department of
Corrective Services as ‘maximum security’ prisoners. This results in
higher levels of security, restrictions on personal property, visits
entitlements and other “privileges” for women who have yet to be found
guilty.28 For example, despite Mulawa Correctional Centre being rated
as a medium security prison and given the department’s relatively new
classification policy for female prisoners, “the presence of remand
prisoners effectively means that medium and minimum security prisoners
may serve their sentence in an environment that is more onerous than is
necessary for their classification status.”29
There are considerable social and psychological costs for a woman in custody. In her study, Women in Prison,30 for BOCSAR, Edwards describes imprisonment as a time of immense stress for women. She explains,
“The personal consequences of imprisonment can be devastating.
Imprisonment can mean the loss of a job, of significant relationships,
and of the legal custody of children …Prisons are also sometimes places
of violence and danger …Aside from the physical dangers of prisons,
inmates must negotiate the day to day prison routine. Prison is an
unnatural social environment, and it can take some time to adjust to
it. Inmates must learn the social norms governing relations among
inmates and between inmates and prison staff.”
It is well known that defendants on remand who are in custody are at a
particularly high risk of self-harm and suicide. In 2000, the
Australian Institute of Criminology reported that “the proportion of
remand prisoners who died in custody during 2000 is almost double the
proportion of prisoners in Australian prisons.”31 Fitzgerald and
Marshal highlight the “irony of remanding a person in custody for their
own safety, given the risks of self-harm and harm by others inherent in
a closed institution.”32 Given the severity in control and
restrictions while in remand, and that women are disproportionately
placed in remand, particularly Aboriginal women, Beyond Bars Alliance
argues that this also presents a case of discrimination in the NSW
criminal justice system.
Prison for Women in NSW
Background
In New South Wales, there are currently eight prisons for women located
across the State: Mulawa Women’s Correctional Centre; Dylwinia Women’s
Correctional Centre; Berrima Women’s Correctional Centre; Emu Plains
Correctional Centre; Bolwara Transitional Centre; Paramatta
Transitional Centre; June Baker Centre – Grafton Correctional Centre
and Kempsey Correctional Centre.33 All women prisoners are incarcerated in those prisons.
While women represent a smaller proportion of the total prison population, their imprisonment rate has been fast increasing. Women make up approximately 7.1% of the New South Wales prison population.34 This has been a 13% increase since 2001, and an 88% increase since 1998 of women in NSW prisons.35
Conversely, as the prison rates for women increase, there is a general
downwards trend for women being placed in community-based
corrections,36 which includes, but is not limited to parole, probation,
corrections orders, drug programs, conditional release, and other
alternatives to prison. These trends suggest a reliance on more
punitive and restrictive measures being placed on women and can be
understood as discriminatory.
Women Prisoners’ Social Context
Women prisoners are likely to be poor, undereducated and lacking
vocational skills that would enable them to earn enough income to be
self-sufficient. On a whole, Australian women represent 85% of one-parent families.37 Prior to being criminalised, many women prisoners have experienced multiple disadvantages.
Most women in prison have faced an overlapping series of difficulties
in their lives, such as a disruptive upbringing that tends to lead to
dropping out of school and the failure to develop job skills, coupled
with substance abuse and violence and mistreatment from many sources.38
According to the 2001 NSW Inmate Health Survey, 64% of women in prison
are hepatitis C positive, 75% of women were unemployed 6 months prior
to incarceration, and prisoners in general have poor health
characterized by neglect, substance abuse and mental illness. Common
issues shared amongst women in prison include dependency, poor
educational and vocational achievement, parental separation at an early
age, foster care, living on the streets, prostitution, violent
relationships, suicide attempts, self-injury and substance abuse.
A large percentage of women entering prison also have the sole responsibility for the care of children.
This further places a strain on both women and children during the
separation generally necessitated by a period of imprisonment.39
Separation from children and the inability to deal with other life
challenges while incarcerated are cause for anxiety amongst women in
prison. Particularly given that one of the main features of
imprisonment is the stigmatization and separation of prisoners from the
rest of the community, this strongly affects the relationship between
mothers and children. Given the various challenges and difficulties
faced by many women in prison, there is a strong interrelationship
between background factors in the lives of women in prison that need to
be addressed simultaneously and comprehensively in order to effectively
enable them to move forward.
Self-injury is a common response by women to the stress of imprisonment.
The majority of women who self-injure identified situations producing
feelings of helplessness, powerlessness, and/or isolation, as being
those that make them want to self-injure. Women in prison are faced
with exactly such situations. This is tacitly acknowledged by prisons, which have rules and regulations in place to prevent self-injury.
The invasiveness and controlling nature of these prison policies and
practices also work to trigger and worsen feelings of powerlessness.
The use of violence by prisoners against themselves or against others
is often interpreted as an expression of violent pathology of the
individual prisoner and often results in further punishment. However, this approach ignores the role of the prison in generating such violence.
Fights in prison are often caused by factors such as boredom,
provocation, unreasonable or unfair treatment by staff, denial of
rights, favouritism, and constant security checks. Furthermore, severe
methods of punishment, variation in the quality of staff and inmate
relations, a perceived lack of autonomy, and staff age and experience
also effects the level of violence in a prison. These organisational
and institutional characteristics have greater effects on the level of
violence than individual characteristics.40
The social context of women prisoners is integral to understanding their survival practices.
The criminalization of women is strongly linked to the socio-economic
disadvantages suffered acutely by women and is often a result of their
marginal social and economic positions within society and their
attempts to survive or transcend such an existence. These matters
must be considered when addressing the various ‘needs’ of women in
prison as, consequently, such problems will persist and the
circumstances that led to their criminalization will be repeated. 41
Aboriginal Women’s Social Context
When issues of racism affecting the general community are mentioned,
the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in the prison system is
cited as a marker of the levels of discrimination against this group.
As noted above, Aboriginal women are particularly imprisoned at a much
higher rate than non-Aboriginal people within the justice system, both
as victims and as prisoners, and often as both.
Aboriginal women and their children suffer tremendously as victims in contemporary Australian society. They are victims of racism, of sexism, and of unconscionable levels of violence. The justice system has done little to address this or to protect Aboriginal women from this violence.
In fact, the overwhelming response has been to further punish
Aboriginal women by removing them from their communities through
imprisonment. Why, in a country that is to be considered just with
equal and fair application of the law, is a particular group so
continuously and consistently over-represented within our systems of
control and punishment?
Recent inquiries into the reasons for over-representation have
concluded that while the issue is complex, two factors may be
identified as the most significant; that the criminal justice system is
discriminatory in its treatment of Aboriginal peoples and that
Aboriginal peoples commit disproportionately more offences because of
their marginalized status in society. This reality is rooted in a long
history of discrimination and social inequality that has impoverished
Aboriginal peoples and consigned them to the margins of our society.
The marginalization of Aboriginal people stems from their historical
exclusion from full participation in the dominant society and, more
importantly, the interference with and suppression of their culture.
Economic and social deprivation is a significant contributor to high
incidences of Aboriginal crime and the over-representation within the
criminal justice system. Beyond Bars Alliance firmly believes a deeper
level of understanding and a greater amount of action is required that
goes beyond simply acknowledging the role played by colonialism,
poverty and debilitating social conditions. It is clear that the
over-representation is directly linked to the particular and
distinctive historical and political processes that have made
Aboriginal peoples “poor beyond poverty”42 and forced them to live in
social conditions that are well below the high standard of living
enjoyed by most Australians.
Social and economic disadvantage is a particular problem amongst Aboriginal women.
For example, in February 2000, the labour force participation rate for
Aboriginal women was 42.6% compared with 54.8% of non-Aboriginal women
and the unemployment rate for Aboriginal women was 14.9% compared with
7.7% of non-Aboriginal women.43 The social context in which their crimes are committed is integral to understanding Aboriginal women who are criminalized.
Many Aboriginal women have experienced disruption of their families and
communities through the operation of racist government policies over
generations. Individual Aboriginal women have experienced much disruption in their lives, both within the community and within prison. They face racism directly as individuals and as a community.
Many Aboriginal women have been raised by non-Aboriginal families due
to care and protection orders and removal policies implemented by the
Government over the last 100 years.
Increasingly, societal norms, administrative policies and laws are in
conflict with the lives of Aboriginal women and their attempts to
survive are resulting in their increasing contact with the criminal
justice system. Aboriginal women prisoners have significantly
different personal and social histories from non-Aboriginal women in a
number of ways and the relationship of Aboriginal peoples’
marginalization to the criminal justice system has been well documented.
As a group, Aboriginal women enter prison at a younger age than
non-Aboriginal women, they generally have lower levels of education and
employment, alcohol, drug abuse and violence are a greater problem for
them and reportedly play a greater role in their offending and they
also suffer from a greater incidence of past physical and sexual abuse.
As prisoners, Aboriginal women suffer the compounded and intersectional
disadvantages of being both women and as Aboriginal peoples in a
discriminatory correctional system. Aboriginal women in the prison
system are triply disadvantaged: they suffer the pains of incarceration
common to all prisoners, they experience both the pains Aboriginal
prisoners feel as a result of their cultural dislocation, and those
which women prisoners experience as a result of being incarcerated.44
Further, the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner states that:
The discrimination faced by Indigenous women is more than a combination of race, gender and class.
It includes dispossession, cultural oppression, disrespect of spiritual
beliefs, economic disempowerment, but from traditional economies, not
just post – colonisation economics and more.45
The report goes on to identify that non-discrimination involves more
than allowing Aboriginal peoples’ access to the principles and
standards of living in the dominant culture. Non-discrimination
requires vigilance to ensure that legitimate cultural differences are
respected. Differences caused by the long history of invasion and
oppression suffered by Aboriginal peoples must also be respected.46
Discrimination within Women’s Prisons in NSW
Access to Programs
In NSW, ironically, women prisoners have been penalized for
constituting only a small percentage of the state’s prison population.
They are not provided with adequate recreation or programs,
particularly educational and skill based training. The small numbers of
women prisoners have resulted in insufficient opportunities made
available to them in prison and have also been used as a justification
for the failure to focus on the particular requirements of women in
prison.
Many correctional policies and practices applied to women are
fundamentally an adaptation of those considered appropriate for men.
Furthermore, programs provided to women prisoners are not comparable in
quantity, quality, or variety to those provided to male prisoners.47 Similarly, women in prison do not have the same access to pre and post release programs.
The programs a woman can access varies according to whether she is in
prison, on remand, whether she has been sentenced, if she is released
on parole or on a community based order, or if she has served a finite
sentence. The ‘status’ of a female prisoner affects the types of
programs that can be accessed; that is, depending on what
classification she is.48 This arbitrary application of and
inconsistent access to programming not only restricts women’s
opportunity to benefit from some form of activity while in prison, but
also limits women’s opportunities for early release. Women should not be further penalized for the Department of Corrective Services’ failure to provide adequate programming.
Aboriginal women in prison rarely have programs and courses that are
Aboriginal centred or that take into consideration their cultural and
spiritual traditions and customs. Programs that fail to consider
Aboriginal culture and their current social and economic disadvantage
will similarly fail to prepare Aboriginal women for release or support
them in coping with the day to day stress, boredom and loneliness of
prison life.Additionally, due to the majority of Aboriginal women
having a medium to high classification, access to prison programmes is
restricted. (see section on Security Classification).49 This ongoing
neglect is a continuation of the colonial legacy that has desecrated,
exploited and marginalized Aboriginal peoples.
Access to Work Opportunities
Opportunities to work and develop employment and trade skills are also limited for women in NSW prisons.
In addition to denying women opportunities to improve their economic
situations, the type of employment that is offered to women in prison
is not useful in gaining work outside prison. Furthermore, those who do not participate are sanctioned. Women also have very few opportunities to pursue education in prison as there are limited places for each program.50 Those who choose education have to do so at the expense of an already meagre pay for prison labour.51
Failing to provide women in prison with useful employment and
educational opportunities limits their potential to succeed in their
communities and essentially sets them up to fail.
Conditional and Community Release
Relative to men, women pose a lower risk to the safety of the community.
However, except for the 40 or so women in transitional centres, women
are provided with few opportunities for work release52 or other contact
with the community prior to release. This reality is particularly true
for Aboriginal women who are granted conditional or community release
at a much lower rate than other women in prison.53
Similarly, women with mental or cognitive disabilities are more likely
to be classified as higher security, as their inability to “manage”
translates into a risk concern. As a result of this tendency to give
women with mental or cognitive disabilities higher security
classifications, they too are less likely to obtain conditional or
community release. Furthermore, since women with mental or cognitive
disabilities require more support upon release and the facilities that
do provide such support are extremely limited, they are again less
likely to obtain these types of release as there are few places that
can accommodate their disability. A lack of adequate community-based
resources is not a justifiable reason for failing to release women into
the community as this constitutes discrimination based upon their
disability.
Women with Disabilities
Women prisoners in New South Wales come from a wide range of
backgrounds and experiences in terms of their age, social and economic
position, culture and ethnicity, and sexual preferences. They include
women who have spent much of their life on the street or in
institutions, older first‑time prisoners, those with families and
children, single women, and those with special physical and health
needs. Many women prisoners are identified as having high levels of need for programs and services, including mental health needs. Men and women in prison have markedly different mental health needs and problems.
Many problems experienced by women prisoners can be linked directly to
past experiences of early and/or continued sexual abuse, physical abuse
and assault.
The well-documented institutional warehousing of persons with
disabilities54 is not an acceptable practice and the recognition that
people with mental disabilities can and do benefit from community-based
services has rendered the practice of institutionalization more
objectionable. The provision of community-based services and less invasive treatments are now recognized as the preferred approach.55
Although community integration is a highly valued principle, relentless
cuts to social and health programs over the last two decades have
eviscerated any real hope for progress offered by this principle.
Currently, the shortage of adequate community resources causes many
persons, particularly those with mental disabilities, to fall through
the cracks of the system. In too many cases, society responds to the
attempts of such persons to survive by characterizing their behaviour
as ‘criminal’, labelling them as ‘criminal offenders’, and
institutionalizing them in the criminal justice system. Social and
economic challenges such as homelessness, unemployment, social
isolation, malnutrition and substance abuse further compound the
struggles and challenges of people with mental disabilities. As a
result of these difficulties, prisons are increasingly becoming the
default placement for people with mental disabilities. 56
Historically, women have been over-represented in psychiatric facilities and under-represented in the prison system.
However, with the closure of psychiatric institutions and increasingly
overtaxed and under-resourced community based services, New South Wales
is now witnessing a marked increase in the number of women with
cognitive and mental disabilities who are being criminalized. Studies
about women in prison indicate that women prisoners have significantly
higher incidences of mental disabilities including schizophrenia, major
depression, substance use disorders, psychosexual dysfunction, and
antisocial personality disorder, than the general community. In
addition, incarcerated women have much higher incidences of histories
of childhood sexual abuse and severe physical abuse than women in the
general population.57
Overall, women outnumber men in all major psychiatric diagnoses:58
women prisoners are three times as likely to experience moderate to
severe depression (68.9%) compared to men in prison; men in prison tend
to be more physically and sexually threatening and violent while women
are more self-abusive and suicidal; self-destructive behaviours, such
as slashing, are not uncommon for women with mental disabilities.
Although men were more likely than women to report a psychiatric
admission within the correctional system, this is likely due to there
being little access to a women’s psychiatric hospital in prison59
despite a 20 bed hospital being opened in 2004 in Long Bay Correctional
Centre for forensic and/or psychiatric affected women.
Women with mental disabilities often serve long sentences and are
labelled as having significant disciplinary problems, while the prison
system is ill equipped to provide the services and supports required by
such women . According to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act
1999 and Regulation, "community safety" is the paramount consideration
in sentencing. It is not surprising then that administration and staff
prioritize security and risk management over all other institutional
and/or individual needs. As a result, women’s health and well-being is
given secondary consideration, if at all, and prison staff have little
awareness of how to respond appropriately to prisoners with mental
disabilities. 60 For example, some women with mental disabilities may
have difficulty understanding prison rules if they are not fully
explained. It is not uncommon for prison staff to respond to such a
circumstance with some form of punishment or by placing women in
physical restraints or administrative segregation – crisis support
units. Such responses often exacerbate rather than alleviate the woman’s symptoms. 61
The Department of Corrective Services state that 57.1% of women in New
South Wales prisons have been diagnosed with a specific mental
illness.62 The trend to incarcerate persons with mental disabilities
in prisons has caused advocates for the mentally disabled to say that
the "clock is being turned back to the 19th century".63 Indeed, the spectre of institutionalization common in previous days may very well be reinventing itself in today's prisons.
Non-Indigenous and Linguistically Diverse Women (CALD)
CALD women are a minority group within NSW prisons and failing to
address language barriers represents a failure of the Department of
Corrective Services to assist women with culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds in NSW prisons. For example, CALD women found that, in general, contact with prison staff was difficult.64
Prison management’s attempt to overcome such barriers through the use
of other women prisoners as interpreters is not an adequate or
realistic strategy.
Imprisonment is one of the most isolating, horrifying and depriving experience for any woman. For women from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) the prison experience is one of “desperate isolation”.65
The Department of Corrective Services only attempts to provide
linguistically and culturally appropriate information at reception upon
arrival at prison. The reception/induction process can be quite
lengthy and complicated, but rather than use face-to-face interpreters,
management relies upon a telephone interpreting service, and only if
considered necessary. This method is highly alienating form of
communication, particularly upon entry when women are most confused,
alarmed and vulnerable.
After induction, no further attempts are made to ensure that CALD women
have information regarding their legal rights, privileges, punishments
or regulations as provided for in the Operations, Policy and Procedures
Manual. This information is only available in English. In a recent
survey, women that were interviewed stated that they did not have
access to an interpreter after admission into the prison.66 CALD women
endure absolute deprivation and isolation in the prison system. They
are in a “state of de facto solitary confinement.”67 As a result, CALD women frequently rely on information from other women in prison.
The CALD women claim they prefer to observe the custom of the prison
and to watch before they act, as a means of gathering information. If they have to ask someone, they would choose another CALD person.
Furthermore, women routinely spend twelve to thirteen hours per day
locked in their cells or units and given the small number of CALD
women, they are often placed in a cell with non-CALD women. CALD women report social and emotional isolation due to cultural and language difference.
As there are only a small number of CALD women at each prison, care is
needed to ensure that CALD women have ready access to each other. The
situation is particularly unfortunate when it is remembered that CALD
women often have to rely on a trusted other to help them gather
information and to fill in forms.
CALD women also found that, in general, contact with prison program staff was not easy. The difficulties were most apparent in the early stages of prison life.
In common with many other prisoners, CALD women felt afraid to ask for
help (particularly at Mulawa Women's Correctional Centre) and were
unaware of the procedures for seeing a counsellor or accessing
educational programs.68 Prison management attempts to overcome
language problems through the use of other women prisoners as
interpreters, which is not an adequate means to ensure women are
properly and well informed.
All prisoners suffer difficulties in maintaining ties with families and friends. Visiting times and number of visitors are restricted, as are times for telephone calls.
The cost of telephone calls is also prohibitive for those whose
families are interstate or overseas as women are required to pay for
all telephone calls. Furthermore, women in prison pay premium rates for both local and international phone calls. So, for example, for a local call women pay 40c rather than 20c.
As mentioned above, given that many women come from lower
socio-economic backgrounds, maintaining outside contacts remains
difficult for many.
Security Classification
Clause 10 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 1995
requires that every prisoner be assigned a security classification. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 provides that security classifications apply to both men and women prisoners.
Beyond Bars Alliance disputes the application of the security
classification system for women in two ways: firstly, as to whether
women should be assigned a security classification at all and,
secondly, whether the current instruments that measure ‘risk’ are valid
for women prisoners.69
The NSW Department of Corrective Services assesses security
classification on the basis of ‘risk’ as determined by ‘needs’.70 Given
their social and economic disadvantage, women prisoners are
particularly discriminated against by a security classification system
that equates a woman’s ‘needs’ as risk factors. Consequently, a process that converts ‘disadvantage’ or ‘needs’ into ‘risk’ penalizes women for their disadvantage. Accordingly, a greater social and economic disadvantage will attract a higher security classification.
This security classification rating scheme results in Aboriginal women
being disproportionately classified as higher security for reasons that
relate to the historical reality of colonial oppression and the current
social and economic realities of Aboriginal disadvantage. Since such
disadvantage equates to ‘risk’, the ‘individual’ risk categories used
in the classification scheme reflect the experience of the entire
Aboriginal population, resulting in the over-classification of the
majority of Aboriginal peoples. A higher classification for Aboriginal
women results in them not being eligible for a range of opportunities
including, for example, being eligible for the Paramatta Transitional
Centre, the Jacaranda Cottages at Emu Plains or a Section 25 release. 71
Similarly, women prisoners labelled with a mental or cognitive
disability are also more likely to be classified as maximum-security
prisoners as they are often described as “difficult to manage”.72
Conditions of isolation and the lack of appropriate services exacerbate
existing mental health conditions and underscore the harsh and
discriminatory nature of placing women with mental and cognitive
disabilities in higher maximum security. Additionally, women prisoners
who have a mental or cognitive disability, or who are in need of
support due to self-harming, are confined in exactly the same way as
women who are perceived as problems for prison discipline.73 Prison
staff are not adequately trained and resources are not available to
ensure proper treatment is available for these women. The risk
assessment tools and classification schemes that are used for women,
particularly Aboriginal women, culturally and linguistically diverse
women and women with disabilities, impose a white, middle-class, and
male-based approach on women prisoners and fail to consider the diverse
challenges women face.
Section 2 of the DCS Operation & Procedures Manual requires that
every prisoner be assigned a security classification of maximum
security, high security, medium security, low security, or open
security. Theoretically, a prisoner’s security classification determines the type of prison in which the prisoner is incarcerated.
Prisons are operated pursuant to rules that reflect the different
degrees of supervision and control imposed on prisoners according to
their security classification. Security classifications also underlie
various other decisions such as the granting of Leaves of Absence, the
prisoner’s access to visitors and the treatment that they receive when
they have health problems. Maximum security prisoners can be housed only in maximum security prisons. They are usually in the secure section of the facility. High security prisoners are also only housed in maximum security prisons, though they may live in the residential area.
Medium security prisoners are also housed in maximum security prisons;
they do not have access to work release and they can receive Leaves of
Absence only if they are escorted in handcuffs. Low and open security
prisoners should be housed in low security prisons, but because of the
paucity of low security beds they are often housed in maximum security. Low and open prisoners should have access to work release and unescorted Leaves of Absence.
If a low or open security prisoner is in a maximum security prison,
then they do not have the same access to the entitlements of a low
security prisoner. As already documented above, there are inadequate low security beds for women in New South Wales prisons. Women regularly serve their sentences in maximum security regardless of their security classification.
The conditions of confinement of women prisoners are virtually the same regardless of security classification. The majority of women are imprisoned in maximum-security prisons despite a lower security classification rating. This is a result of there being too few low and open facilities.
Beyond Bars Alliance asserts that the lack of low security facilities
available to women prisoners constitutes discrimination based on sex.
Although there are several NSW prisons that are regarded as medium and
minimum security, the actual number of women that are classified low
security and have access to the privileges and programs associated with
being a low security is minimal.74 In 2003, Emu Plains Correctional
Centre, which was considered a medium to low security prison, built
more fencing to enable remand women prisoners (i.e. high security
classified) to be housed there. This, therefore, minimizes the low security positions that the prison was originally developed for.75
Strip Searching
Mandatory strip searching is also experienced in a discriminatory manner by women prisoners.
Women prisoners, as a group, have higher incidences of prior sexual
assault, domestic violence and other forms of abuse 76 (and suffer
post-traumatic stress as a result at higher rates than male prisoners
77 as well as the general community). As a result, they often experience strip searching as a new occurrence of assault.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that mandatory strip searching
actually carries out its stated purpose to prevent contraband. There
are other proven ways to search for and prevent contraband. Mandatory
strip searching, as a non-consensual act, is de-humanising and
humiliating and fails to accomplish its intended purpose. It is an
unjustified assault on women prisoners by the state and thus breaches
their human rights. 78
As a debasing, unreasonable and discriminatory practice, strip
searching contravenes Australia’s International Treaty obligations,
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), ratified in Australia on 13 November 1980, the Convention on
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
ratified in Australia on August 27 1983 and the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment
ratified in Australia on 7 September 1988 (henceforth referred to as the Convention Against Torture).
All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person
Article 10.1 ICCPR
No-one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7 ICCPR
No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary and unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence ...
Article 17.1 ICCPR
Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks
Article 17.2 ICCPR
The ICCPR makes reference to prisoners’ human rights based on the
following provisions: That prisoners will be treated with humanity and
respect and that they shall not be subject to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, ICCPR codifies the
right of people not to be arbitrarily interfered with and the
protection of the law against such interference.
International Law says that a punishment is cruel if it does not
contribute to acceptable goals and results in purposeless and needless
pain and suffering. One indicator of cruel punishment is where the
permissible aims of punishment (deterrence, isolation to protect the
community and rehabilitation) can be achieved as effectively by
punishing the offence less severely.79 Two important principles emerge
from the international standards on the treatment of prisoners.
Firstly, individuals are sent to prison as a punishment, not for
punishment and secondly, despite having lost their right to freedom,
prisoners’ rights do not stop at the prison door.80 “While the law
does take [the prisoners] liberty and imposes a duty of servitude and
observance of discipline for [her] regulation and that of other
prisoners, it does not deny [her] right to personal security against
unlawful invasion”.81
Mandatory strip searching is in breach of the ICCPR principles, as
women in prison are routinely punished through the random and mandatory
strip searches that are conducted without reasonable suspicion and that
violate their right to personal security against unlawful and
unreasonable invasion.
Strip searching also violates the provisions set forth by the
Convention Against Torture as it constitutes cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment. Strip searching, as an unjustifiable and
dehumanizing practice, is an unlawful interference with the privacy and
wellbeing of the prisoner and violates the obligation to treat women
prisoners with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the
human person.
Subjecting a woman prisoner to a mandatory strip search, other than one
based on specific and reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence,
constitutes and reinforces her powerlessness and loss of dignity. The
strip searching of women, and particularly women who are survivors of
sexual assault, is an antiquated practice that can only result in the
further degradation and humiliation of women. Corrective services are clearly in breach of Australia's obligations under the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture.
The arbitrary, capricious and oppressive strip searching of women is
also in breach of Australia’s commitment to the rights of women. The
CEDAW committee, which comprises 23 experts of “high moral standing and
competence”, has articulated that discrimination against women includes
gender based violence, that is, violence that is directed against a
woman as a result of her gender, or that affects women
disproportionately. As a large majority of women from prison are
survivors of sexual abuse and/or incest, strip searches impact women
disproportionate. A strip search, as an assault, is an act of violence towards a woman’s person. In Queensland, women prisoners are strip searched more frequently than male prisoners.
The frequency at which strip searches occur on women further reinforces
gender subordination and violence directed towards women.
Post-release
After release from prison, women and especially Aboriginal women are
subject to discrimination. There are only ten funded post-release
support places for women in NSW at Guthrie House. These places must
also serve women seeking housing support for bail, women awaiting a
Drug Court hearing and women on parole. There are no funded supported
places for Aboriginal women. Women and Aboriginal women in particular
return to prison after release significantly faster and in greater
numbers than men which suggests they face significantly greater
barriers to social integration. This is unsurprising, considering that
they are provided with fewer resources and opportunities.82 Aboriginal
women who are on parole are also breached in greater numbers than other
parolees often due to lack of suitable housing, failed attempts to
reclaim their children and the necessity of having to consort with
partners, family and friends who they may be ordered not to mix with.
There is a growing rate of re-imprisonment due to these breaches of
administrative orders and they affect women disproportionately.83
Other Forms of Discrimination
Religion
The religious needs of women prisoners are met through the Chaplaincy Board. The Chaplaincy Board currently includes four denominations (Anglican, Catholic, Uniting Church and the Salvation Army).
Prisoners whose religions are not included in these groups must make
special arrangements for services or visits by contacting their case
workers/welfare workers; 61.6% of CALD women stated that no information
was provided about access to religious services for their faith, 23%
stated that they have to pray in their cell and are sometimes disturbed
by prison officers, 15.4% were given a Christian Bible even though they
were not Christians. There is clear discrimination against women who
are not Christians in the failure to provide them access to the
religious services and pastoral care that is appropriate to their
faith.84 Furthermore, Vietnamese women have very distinct days of special significance. Yet their festivals and days of special religious observance are not celebrated within prison.
Vietnamese women identified two days of special significance: Tet and
the Moon Festival, yet while the prison makes allowances for Christian
holidays such as Easter and Christmas, no allowance is made for
non-Christian religious holidays.
Food
Despite the existence of some freedom in selecting menus, some women,
such as vegetarians, vegans, CALD women and women of certain religious
faiths find it very difficult to accommodate their dietary needs as
food selection and preparation are based on a Western standard.85 In
addition, some women have metabolic conditions (such as lactose
intolerance) that prevent them from eating much of the food served in
the prison. Although the prison does provide some basic ingredients
for the women's use and the women then "buy in" any special items which
they wish to use, women still find that the basic ingredients are
western and they are forced to buy most or all of the ingredients for
their meals. This presents a financial burden because the women only
receive approximately $3 to $4 a day, depending on what industry they
work in and even less if they are continuing their education. This
practice is detrimental and discriminatory in regards to respecting
women’s dietary and cultural needs.
Systemic Discrimination: The Regulatory Framework
The Statutory Framework
The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and Regulation, the
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the Parole Orders (Transfer)
Act 1983 and departmental policies and procedures govern the conditions
of imprisonment and the release of women prisoners in New South Wales.
The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 provides that every
member of society has certain basic human entitlements and that, for
this reason, a prisoner’s entitlements, other than those that are
necessarily diminished because of imprisonment or another court
sentence, should be safeguarded. The Crimes (Administration of
Sentences) Act 1999 and Regulation both include restrictions on the
rights and privileges of prisoners and provide them with certain
entitlements and procedural protections. The Act recognises the need
to respect the dignity of those in prison and their special needs by
taking into account age, gender, race, disability status and the
culturally specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples. Therefore, prisoners retain all the rights and privileges
that are enjoyed by all members of society except for those which are
necessarily removed as a consequence of the sentence of imprisonment.
Many of the policies, procedures and practices which operate in prisons
are not contained in the Act or the Regulation but are promulgated by
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrective Services. For
example, there is no provision in the Act that specifically mentions
“management plans”, but management plans are nonetheless one way in
which women in prison are controlled. Firstly, management plans are not applied to all women, only to those selected by the prison administration. Furthermore, the vast majority of women on management plans are Aboriginal.
These plans do not require women to be placed in separate prison cells,
but it is a practice regularly used by prison authorities.
The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 establishes a
complete statutory framework, which regulates all aspects of the
confinement and release of prisoners serving prison sentences. The
overriding purpose expressed in section 3 of the Crimes (Administration
of Sentences) Act 1999 is community safety and crime prevention through
the humane containment, supervision and rehabilitation of prisoners. The primacy of this concern reflects the traditional security based model for prison management.
Because of the statutory mandate, Crimes (Administration of Sentences)
Act 1999 views virtually all decisions concerning imprisonment through
a security prism. Unfortunately, the Department interprets this
requirement to mean that security concerns prevail even over human
rights, including equality rights.
For the Department, prisoners’ human rights and rights under the Act
can be ignored or restricted when there is a “security concern”, no
matter how important or fundamental the right and how tangential or
speculative the security concern. From the perspective of the
Department, actions are not recognised as discriminatory or otherwise
illegal where the purpose of the action is security. The legality of
policy and the manner in which policy is implemented are assessed only
against the requirements of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences)
Act 1999 and Regulation. Actions by the Department and the prison administration are not assessed against other legislation.
However, as with all governmental actions, decisions taken by the
Department of Corrective Services must comply with the Anti
Discrimination Act 1991, which applies to all members of society and
prohibits unlawful discrimination.
Conclusion
The systems and processes of policing, courts, prisons and are often shielded from public scrutiny.
While past inquiries, reviews and reports have repeatedly and
consistently documented the abuses and mistreatment to which women have
been and are subjected, there are no systems of accountability to
ensure the rule of law is upheld and that women’s well-being is
maintained. Whilst women caught in the criminal justice system may have
only a brief encounter with policing and the courts, they may have
prolonged encounters with the prison system. For women prisoners,
enquiries and investigations into the prison are often seen as
potentially harmful as any information that they convey can be used
against them by prison authorities and/or administration in various
pernicious ways. As a result, women are often reluctant to disclose information that can have personal consequences for them.
Beyond Bars Alliance urges the Anti Discrimination Commission of NSW to
immediately initiate an inquiry and/or a review into the conditions of
women in the criminal justice system in New South Wales, in order to
remedy the systemic discrimination and human rights violations that
women in prison face.
Appendix I
Similar letters were sent to The Commissioner for Corrective Services and the Commissioner for Police
20th July, 2004
Hon. Bob Debus MP
Attorney General of NSW
PO Box A290
Sydney South
NSW 1232
Dear Attorney General
Re: Complaint Regarding the Discriminatory Treatment of Women in the
Criminal Justice System by the Government of New South Wales.
On behalf of individual community members we are writing to register
our complaint about the discriminatory treatment of women in the
criminal justice system at the hands of the New South Wales Government.
We are requesting that the NSW Attorney General’s Department, the NSW
Police Department and NSW Department of Corrective Services conduct a
broad-based, systemic review and issue a special report regarding the
treatment of women in the criminal justice system including women
prisoners.
This complaint is made on the grounds that the manner in which women
are treated in the criminal justice system is discriminatory, as it
contravenes several of the prohibited grounds articulated in the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 as well as rights and
obligations that have become part of customary international laws. The
process of arrest, detainment for questioning, remanded to custody,
appearing in court and the subsequent incarceration in NSW prisons
should be included within the systematic review and report..
We are concerned about the discrimination on the basis of sex that is
faced by women throughout the system, especially poor women, Aboriginal
women, women with mental and intellectual disabilities and single
mothers facing court, those held on remand, housed in segregated crisis
support units and all those subjected to strip searches. In addition,
we are very concerned about the discrimination on the basis of race
that is the particular experience of Aboriginal women (with NSW having
the highest rate of over-representation of Indigenous women in prison
in Australia and possibly the world Social Justice Commissioner 2002)
and other racialised women, as well as discrimination on the basis of
disability that is experienced by women facing arrest, court and
imprisonment in New South Wales with cognitive and mental disabilities
(with up to 50% having a mental disturbance in the 12 months prior to
imprisonment).
In addition to the material in previous reports on issues of Aboriginal
prisoners in particular, we refer you to the documentation of the
nature and extent of the discrimination on the basis of sex, race and
disability experienced by women in the criminal justice system in New
South Wales evident in the documents listed in the attachment.
With the exception of various internal investigations, we understand
that the foregoing documentation is available and known to your
Department. Should this not be the case, we would be happy to assist
you in obtaining copies of any documents to which you do not currently
have access. In addition, we are available to meet at a time of mutual
convenience to discuss this matter further. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at your earliest convenience should you have any questions
or desire any additional information regarding this complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Eileen Baldry
On behalf of the Beyond Bars Alliance
Identical requests sent to the NSW Police Commissioner and the NSW Commissioner for Corrective Services
Cc: Anti Discrimination Board of NSW
PLEASE REPLY TO:
Dr Eileen Baldry
Senior Lecturer
School of Social Work
UNSW
NSW 2052
Ph 9385 1878
Attachment – documents relevant to discrimination against women in the criminal justice system
1.“Inmate Health Survey 2001” Butler & Milner (2003)
2.“Women ex-prisoners post-release. Where to from here?” Baldry, E.
paper presented at Sisters Inside Conference, Brisbane Nov 27-30th
(2003)
3.“Diverting Mentally Ill Women away from Prison in NSW: building on
the existing system” Walsh, T. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law Vol 10,
No 1 pp227-238 (2003)
4.“Issues Facing Mental Health Patients Post Release”. Greenberg, D. (2003)
5.“The Invisible Sentence Project” –Scott, P. (2003)
6.“Prisoners In Australia” – Australia Bureau of Statistics (2003)
7.“Aboriginal Offenders Strategic Plan 2003-2005” NSW Dept Corrective Services, (2003)
8.“Speak Out, Speak Strong” Lawrie R. (AJAC-2003)
9.NSW Aboriginal Justice Plan: Discussion Paper Summary - Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee (AJAC – 2002)
10.“Indigenous Women and Corrections – A Landscape of Risk” Social
Justice Report 2002, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner.
11.“Ex-prisoners and Accommodation: What bearing do different forms of
housing have on social re-integration”. Positioning paper AHURI,
Melbourne. Baldry E, McDonnell D, Maplestone P, Peeters M. (2002)
12.“Post Release Policy, Issues and Services in Australia: Themes
emerging from round table discussions”. Crime and Criminal Justice.
Australian Institute of Criminology Canberra. Borzychi, M. &
Baldry, E. (2002)
13.“Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System”. Paper presented at
a Public Seminar, Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney, (2002)
14.“Report on an Inspection of Mulawa Correctional Centre”. Inspector General of NSW Corrective Services (2002)
15.“Strip Searching as Sexual Assault”. Women in Prison Journal Vol 2: 17-23. Pereira, C. (2001)
16.“Women Bail and Remand” Ryan, L. Student Report to the NSW Anti Discrimination Board (2001)
17.“Double jeopardy: sentencing options in NSW and the discriminatory
implications for female offenders as carers”. Ellison, S. report to the
ADB 2001
18.“Homelessness and the Criminal Justice System” Women, Girls and Criminal Justice Vol 12 No 6:83, 91-94. Baldry, E. (2001)
19.“Interim Report – Issues Relating to Women”. Select Committee on The
Increase in Prisoner Population. NSW Legislative Council July (2000)
20.“Reducing the Number of Women In Prison”. Research submission to
Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population NSW Parliament
Upper House Committee. Vinson, T and Baldry, E. (2000)
21.“Women’s Action Plan 2” NSW Department of Corrective Services October (2000)
22.“Women in Prison: The Criminal Court Perspective”. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Fitzgerald, Jacqueline (1999)
23.“Convicted Women: Before and After Prison”. Current issues in Criminal Justice Vol 8, No 3: 275-286. Baldry, E. (1997)
24.“Women in Prison”: Crime and Justice Bulletin – Contemporary Issues
in Crime & Justice No: 26, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research, Sydney. Edwards, A. (1995)
25.“Prison-Not Yet the Last Resort: A Review of the NSW Penal System” Inter Church Steering Committee on Prison Reform (1994)
26.“Prisons and Women”, Hampton, B. (1994)
27.“Women’s Action Plan” NSW Dept Corrective Services (1994)
28.“Prisons: the Continuing Crisis in NSW. The Federation press, Grant,D. (1992)
29.“The Prison Struggle: Changing Australia’s Prison System” Zdenkowski, G & Brown D. (1991)
30.“National Report: Overview and Recommendations”, Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody Johnston, E.(1991)
31.Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody (1991)
32.“Women and Imprisonment”: Submission to the Social Development
Committee into Community Violence – Fitzroy Legal Centre (1988)
33.“Report of the NSW Women in Prison Taskforce” NSW Parliament (1985)
34.“The Failure of Imprisonment” Tomasic R and Dobinson I, (1979)
|
|
© 2010 Justice Action
Breakout - a major sponsor; concerned with responsible corporate citizenship
|
|
