230 likes | 380 Views
Criminal Designs. Sheila M. Bird (sheila.bird@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk) MRC Biostatistics Unit, CAMBRIDGE CB2 2SR. “What works” in UK criminal justice?. Large RCTs essentially untried . . . Judges prescribe sentence on lesser evidence than doctors prescribe medicines. Is public aware?.
E N D
Criminal Designs Sheila M. Bird (sheila.bird@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk) MRC Biostatistics Unit, CAMBRIDGE CB2 2SR
“What works” in UK criminal justice? Large RCTs essentially untried . . .
Judges prescribe sentence on lesser evidence than doctors prescribe medicines Is public aware?
Drug Treatment &Testing Orders (DTTOs): evaluations charade (1) • England and Wales: 210 clients • Scotland: 96 clients • Targets for DTTO clients in E&W: 6000+ per annum • DTTO clients > > 21,000 by end 2003
RSS Court DTTO-eligible offenders: do DTTOs work ? • Off 1 DTTO • Off 2 DTTO • Off 3 alternative = • Off 4 DTTO • Off 5 alternative = • Off 6alternative = Database linkage to find out about major harms: offenders’ deaths, re-incarcerations & . . . Serious further offences
Judicial trial’s 3-way randomisation:D = 400 to DTTO, A = 400 to alternative, J = 800 to judge decides between DTTO versus alternative Is J. better than A+D?
Electronic tag as worn by offenders
Electronic surveillance: tagging ? diversion from prison, RLO (Restriction of Liberty Order) early release from prison, HDC (Home Detention Curfew) diversion from remanded to jail, EM-bail (Electronically-Monitored bail versus remand may influence trial date and/or judge’s sentence . . .) ? addition to community sentence, ISSP (Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Program)
Cost per linked fatality? £1.5 millions pounds mostly, life-years lost and impact on families costed, but not re-imbursed, by Criminal Justice!
Restriction of Liberty Orders • Scotland’s CJ study . . . • Public consultation . . . • Private tender for electronic tagging . . . • Post-marketing surveillance . . . (diverted from jail?)
Application of scientific method Randomisation: to compare like with like Adequate study size: for precise estimation Reporting standards: as in medical journals Efficacy and costs: rational, prior estimates Peer scientific reviewof Study/trialprotocol
Scottish courts’ RLO-eligible offenders: ? guess • Off 7 RLO [ ? ] • Off 8 RLO [ ? ] • Off 9 RLO [ ? ] • Off10 RLO [ ? ] • Off11 RLO [ ? ] • Off12 RLO [ ? ] • Off13 RLO [ ? ] • Off14 RLO [ ? ] Breach rates & costs versus . . . [ ? ]
Evaluations-charade (2)funded guesswork: electronically monitored RLOs • Scotland:143 clients (152 RLOs; 422 assessed) • 75% RLOs for 3-6m • Failure in 40/143 RLOs; prison for 23/40 + 11/103. • Assessed, not given RLO: 40% sent to prison !! • Assume equal #s of 3m & 6m RLOs{£3,680}, annual cost in Scotland of £3.68m1000 RLOs! • Saving of £300,000 if RLOs displace equal length prison terms, or . . . £1.7m if all displaced prison terms were 6m . . .
Public Consultation v. private contractpublic opinion re electronically monitoring for . . . “Cost of national RLO roll out could be in the region of £4 millions annually, compared to a long term prison saving of £1.7 millions!” “1000 RLOs - used as in pilot - could mean reduction of 400 in # custodial terms, but add back 100 for breach actions . . .”
Linked fatality:Scotland • Callum Evans (born 1987, Restriction of Liberty Order, June 2005): with Peter Clark (also 18) in October 2005, murdered 23-year old John Hatfield(132 injuries ~ knife/machete & axe)outside CE’s home. CE’s being outside his residencedid not trigger alarm because tag had been wrongly set by Reliance
Was CE’s RLO a diversion from jail ? or Tagging added to community order ? Not known !
DESIGN: Electronically-Monitored bail v. remanded to prison When to randomise? What to compare? Costs?
Post-RCT Outcomes Re index offence: Time to trial/sentence Actual sentence Within y years: Days in custody Days on community order Serious further offence Survival @ 3 years Costs
Randomised controlled trials to police Policy by Home Office Prisons & Criminal Justice
Evaluations-charade • Failure to randomise • Failure to find out about major harms • Failure even to elicit alternative sentence funded guesswork on relative cost-effectiveness • Volunteer-bias in follow-up interviews • Inadequate study size re major outcomes . . .
Five PQs for every CJ initiative • PQ1: Minister, why no randomised controls? • PQ2:Minister, why have judges not evenbeen asked to document offender’s alternative sentence that this CJ initiative supplants {re CE}? • PQ3:What statistical power does Ministerial pilot have re well-reasonedtargets? {or just kite flying . . .} • PQ4:Minister, cost-effectivenessis driven bylonger-term health & CJ harms, how are these ascertained { database linkage}? • PQ5:Minister, any ethical/consent issues?