Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: When women with mental disabilities are sexually assaulted, they face numerous barriers to having their stories heard by criminal courts. Some of these are problems faced by all sexual assault complainants, others are unique to women with mental disabilities. In this presentation, I will explore how the criminal trial process has failed to take into account the needs and circumstances of women with mental disabilities, and how it perpetuates stereotypes of women with mental disabilities as both oversexed and infantile. Topics to be covered would include sexual history evidence, third party records, credibility, and the ability to be sworn and how sex equality for this group of women can be achieved without breaching the rights of accused persons to a fair trial. (This is a companion piece to an earlier article that considered these questions in light of substantive issues such as consent, capacity to consent and mistaken belief. This is now the procedural side of the question.)

Publication Type: Poster
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Undergraduates read vignettes describing an allegation of sexual assault or a motor vehicle accident. The vignette included information that increased credibility of the complainant/witness, decreased her credibility, or discussed the burden of proof. Factors that increased credibility of the complainant/witness did not influence credibility of the accused when the complainant/witness was described as 5- or 13-years old. However, when she was described as 20-years old, factors that decreased her credibility also increased the credibility of the accused. These data are discussed in the context of breaches to principles of fundamental justice that could lead to wrongful convictions or wrongful acquittals.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper considers the redress mechanism in one area of social welfare in the United Kingdom: complaints procedures for community care services provided by local authorities.

The research conducted for this paper involved qualitative interviews with thirty-six people who had made complaints about community care services, as well as interviews with those responsible for running the complaints procedure and focus groups with people who used community care services. It explores the motivations of people using the complaints system and their understandings of this process. It considers whether it is possible to distinguish different types of complaints: those which, from a top-down perspective, would primarily be regarded as ‘appeals’ against refusal of services; and those which are best understood as being about the way that people are treated.

An important concern of the research was to look at the barriers which prevent people from making complaints. The barriers which complainants and focus group members talked about are similar to the barriers that are found in many other grievance procedures: practical barriers; lack of knowledge; lack of confidence; cynicism; the power imbalance between users and service providers; concern about the consequences of complaining. One barrier to the use of complaints procedures which may not be so important in other mechanisms is created by the meanings associated with the word ‘complaining’ or ‘being a complainer’. Complaining has negative connotations and this has a deterrent effect on some potential complainants. The actions needed to break down the barriers to complaining are similar to those necessary in other areas of citizen redress but the problem of ‘not wanting to complain’ has to be tackled in a different way.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: A great deal of attention has been devoted recently to the growth of police oversight agencies in the U.S. One of the key features of these agencies has been the involvement of independent, non-police citizens in the investigation of citizen complaints. Underlying this trend has been the assumption that the involvement of independent citizens will improve satisfaction among complainants, police officers, and the public by increasing the neutrality, thoroughness, and fairness of the complaint process. Yet, little systematic research has been devoted to examining whether this is actually the case. Drawing on data from anonymous mailed surveys administered to police complainants before and after the implementation of police oversight, this paper adopts a procedural justice theoretical perspective and attempts to assess the impact that the implementation of citizen oversight has on the attitudes of police complainants in two large western cities. The results indicate that the implementation of police oversight did indeed increase satisfaction with the thoroughness and efficiency of the process. Yet, the new process did not alter key perceptions regarding either the neutrality or fairness of the process. The implications for the citizen oversight of police are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Citizen Police Review Boards have long been viewed as the ideal oversight mechanism for reviewing complaints against the police. While the process of establishing and maintaining a panel of civilians to review allegations of misconduct has been viewed as the solution to the secrecy of internal complaint review by police organizations, few studies have examined the outcomes of the establishment and maintenance of review boards.

The success of the review board process is difficult to measure. However, the presence of a citizen police review board should ideally provide some comfort to complainants who have fairness and equity concerns about internal organizational review systems.

This paper uses survey data, collected during the past four years, of complainants who have experienced the review of their complaints against the police by a citizen police review board. Levels of complainant satisfaction are examined, as well as perceptions of the fairness of the various steps of the review process. Complainant satisfaction for those who have been active participants and who have attended review board meetings regarding their cases are compared to the more passive and less involved complainants. Citizen Police Review Board decisions, along with internal police review results, are compared to complainant evaluations of the process as well as the resolution of cases.