This chapter covers the field of victimology reflecting the increasing recognition of how victims experience crime and other forms of ill-treatment. Sexual abuse gained much attention recently, especially with individuals self-disclosing their personal experiences on social media platforms through the #MeToo movement. Additionally, social media platforms facilitated the new collective potential. The chapter clarifies that victimology is centrally concerned with the understanding of the experience of suffering that recognizes antecedents and risk factors for offending identified in longitudinal studies. The possibility of suffering provides an integrative concept for criminology that correlates to the notions of victimization, offending, and the operation of criminal justice.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Criminal Behaviour and Mental HealthVolume 30, Issue 2-3 p. 65-67 INVITED EDITORIAL Telemedicine in prisons: A Crime in Mind perspective John Gunn, Corresponding Author John Gunn johncgunn2@gmail.com Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK Correspondence John Gunn, Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK. Email: johncgunn2@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorPamela J. Taylor, Pamela J. Taylor Department of Psychological Medicine & Neurology, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Forrester, Andrew Forrester orcid.org/0000-0003-2510-1249 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJanet Parrott, Janet Parrott orcid.org/0000-0001-9650-9802 Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, Bexley, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAdrian Grounds, Adrian Grounds Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, UKSearch for more papers by this author John Gunn, Corresponding Author John Gunn johncgunn2@gmail.com Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK Correspondence John Gunn, Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK. Email: johncgunn2@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorPamela J. Taylor, Pamela J. Taylor Department of Psychological Medicine & Neurology, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Forrester, Andrew Forrester orcid.org/0000-0003-2510-1249 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJanet Parrott, Janet Parrott orcid.org/0000-0001-9650-9802 Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, Bexley, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAdrian Grounds, Adrian Grounds Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 26 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2160Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Open Research DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Citing Literature Volume30, Issue2-3June 2020Pages 65-67 RelatedInformation

Background Mentally disordered offenders may suffer discrimination on the basis of mental disorder, or on the basis of being offenders, or both. Aims The aim of this paper is to outline a framework for examining discrimination affecting mentally disordered offenders. It is argued that there should be systematic comparisons between offenders with mental disorder and nonoffenders with mental disorder in order to identify and characterise specific failures to ensure equivalence of mental health care; and systematic comparisons between offenders with mental disorder and offenders without mental disorder in order to identify how mental disorder may constitute a barrier to forms of support and constructive intervention available to other offenders. Methods A critical review was conducted of official documents presenting criminal justice and mental health policy for England and Wales, principally since 2012, together with reports of inspectorate and oversight bodies and relevant research studies. Findings There is evidence that offenders with mental disorder may not be able to access mental health care equivalent to that for nonoffenders with mental disorder. There is also evidence that they may not be able to access interventions available to other offenders. Further disadvantage may arise in the criminal courts since, in England and Wales, if inpatient care is required, the powers of criminal courts to effect hospital admission under Part III of mental health legislation are weakened by the statutory requirement of information that places are available. This is discriminatory against offenders with mental disorder insofar as forms of court disposal for other offenders are not prevented by the capacity of criminal justice agencies. Conclusions and implications The review supports the need for systematic comparisons to identify forms of disadvantage and discrimination experienced by mentally disordered offenders in relation to both mental health and criminal justice policies services.

The UK and Ireland have a long record of providing specialist secure mental health services in health service hospitals, and a more recent one of specialist community services for offender-patients. This chapter examines the development and provision of such services, so mainly about the framework for delivering specialist assessments and treatments rather than those tasks themselves. A new tier of medium security hospital services was developed, forensic psychiatry specialist training was established in the UK and Ireland and an academic base took a tenuous hold. Fear and intolerance of people who have a mental illness has a long history, partly because of a perception, which goes back at least into ancient Greece, that violence as well as 'wandering about' is characteristic of mental disorder. In specialist forensic mental health services, physical security refers to the nature of the perimeter walls or fence and the internal building design.

The prominence of risk in UK social and criminal justice policy creates opportunities, challenges and dangers for forensic psychiatry. The future standing of the specialty will depend not only on the practical utility of its responses to those opportunities and challenges, but also the ethical integrity of those responses.

Criminal Behaviour and Mental HealthVolume 20, Issue 5 p. 307-322 Editorial Contemplating common ground in the professional ethics of forensic psychiatry† Adrian Grounds, Adrian Grounds Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJohn Gunn, John Gunn Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London UKSearch for more papers by this authorWade C. Myers, Wade C. Myers Brown University, Department of Psychiatry & Human BehaviorSearch for more papers by this authorRichard Rosner, Richard Rosner New York University School of Medicine, New York, USASearch for more papers by this authorKenneth G. Busch, Corresponding Author Kenneth G. Busch [email protected] consultant forensic psychiatrist, 30 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1916, Chicago, IL 60611, USAconsultant forensic psychiatrist, 30 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1916, Chicago, IL 60611, USASearch for more papers by this author Adrian Grounds, Adrian Grounds Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJohn Gunn, John Gunn Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London UKSearch for more papers by this authorWade C. Myers, Wade C. Myers Brown University, Department of Psychiatry & Human BehaviorSearch for more papers by this authorRichard Rosner, Richard Rosner New York University School of Medicine, New York, USASearch for more papers by this authorKenneth G. Busch, Corresponding Author Kenneth G. Busch [email protected] consultant forensic psychiatrist, 30 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1916, Chicago, IL 60611, USAconsultant forensic psychiatrist, 30 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1916, Chicago, IL 60611, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 November 2010 https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.789Citations: 8 † The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent those of any of the organisations to which they are or have been affiliated. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL REFERENCES American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (2005) Ethics Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry. http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm [22 June 2010]. American Medical Association (2001) Principles of Medical Ethics. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html [22 June 2010]. American Psychiatric Association (2009) The Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. Arlington VA: APA. http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/PsychiatricPractice/Ethics/ResourcesStandards.aspx [22 June 2010]. Appelbaum K (2002) Political abuse by psychiatry: An introduction to the Munro commentaries. Journal of the Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30: 95– 96. Bonnie RJ (2001) Semyon Gluzman and the unraveling of Soviet psychiatry. Journal of the Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 29: 327–329. Candilis PJ, Weinstock R, Martinez R (2007) Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness. New York: Springer. Council of Europe (1998) Recommendation No. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning the Ethical and Organisational Aspects of Health Care in Prison. http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/prisons_and_alternatives/legal_instruments/Rec.R(98)7%20.asp [22 June 2010]. Council of Europe (2002) European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/126.htm [22 June 2010]. Council of Europe (2004) Recommendation Rec(2004)10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning the Protection of the Human Rights and Dignity of Persons with Mental Disorder.https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=775685&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864 [22 June 2010]. Declaration of Geneva (2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva [15 September 2010]. Dressing H, Salize SJ (2006) Forensic psychiatric assessment in European Union states. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 114: 282– 289. EM (Lebanon) (FC) (Appellant) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2008] UKHL 64. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/leban-1.htm [22 June 2010]. Frankena W (1973) Ethics ( 2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. General Medical Council (2006) Good Medical Practice. London: GMC. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/index.asp [22 June 2010]. Gordon H, Lindqvist P (2007) Forensic psychiatry in Europe. Psychiatric Bulletin 31: 421– 424. Griffith EEH (2005) Personal narrative and an African-American perspective on medical ethics. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33: 371– 381. Gunn J (2006) Abuse of psychiatry. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 16, 77– 86. Gunn J (2010) Dr Harold Frederick Shipman: An enigma. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 20: 190– 198. Hippocratic Oath (2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath. [15 September 2010]. Kaplan R (2007) The clinicide phenomenon: An exploration of medical murder. Australasian Psychiatry 15, 299– 304. Maj M (2008) The WPA action plan 2008–2011. World Psychiatry 7: 129– 130. Martinez R, Candilis PJ (2005) Commentary: Toward a unified theory of personal and forensic ethics. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33: 382– 385. Miles SH, Freedman (2009) Medical ethics and torture: Revising the Declaration of Tokyo. Lancet 373: 344– 348. Myers WC, Hall RCW, Eth S (2006) AAPL's New Ethics Guidelines. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter 31: 12– 13. Njenga FG (2006) Forensic psychiatry: The African experience. World Psychiatry 5: 97. Norko MA (2005) Commentary: Compassion at the Core of Forensic Ethics. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33: 386– 389. Okasha A (2003) The Declaration of Madrid and its implementation. An update. World Psychiatry. June; 2(2): 65– 67. Rachels J (2003) The Elements of Moral Philosophy ( 4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (1980) Guide to Ethical Principles on Medico-Legal Reports. Melbourne, Australia: RANZCP. http://www.ranzcp.org/images/stories/ranzcp-attachments/Resources/College_Statements/Ethical_Guidelines/eg01.pdf [ 22 June 2010 ]. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (2004) The RANZCP Code of Ethics. Melbourne, Australia: RANZCP. http://www.ranzcp.org/images/stories/ranzcp-attachments/Resources/College_Statements/Code_of_Conduct.pdf [22 June 2010]. Royal College of Psychiatrists (2008) Court Work. College Report CR147. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/publications/collegereports/cr/cr147.aspx [22 June 2010]. Sarkar S, Adshead G (2003) Editorial: Protecting altruism: A call for a code of ethics in British psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry 183: 95– 97. Slonimsky H (1967) Essays. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press. Stein G (1922) Geography and Plays. Boston, MA: The Four Seas Co. Stone AA (1980) Presidential address: Conceptual ambiguity and morality in modern psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry 137: 887– 891. United Nations (1991) The Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r119.htm [22 June 2010]. United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150 [22 June 2010]. Weinstein HC (1984) How should forensic psychiatry police itself? Guidelines and grievances: The AAPL Committee on Ethics. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 12: 289– 302. World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo (1975) http://www.wma.net/e/policy/c18.htm [15 September 2010]. World Psychiatric Association (1983) Declaration of Hawaii/II. http://www.worldpsychiatricassociation. org/detail.php?section_id=5&content_id=27 [22 June 2010]. World Psychiatric Association (2005) Madrid Declaration on Ethical Standards for Psychiatric Practice. http://www.wpanet.org/detail.php?section_id=5&content_id=48 [22 June 2010] Zonana H (2005) AAPL's new ethics guidelines. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Newsletter 30: 5. Citing Literature Volume20, Issue5December 2010Pages 307-322 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Criminal Behaviour and Mental HealthVolume 18, Issue 1 p. 1-13 Editorial The end of faith in forensic psychiatry Adrian Grounds, Corresponding Author Adrian Grounds ag113@cam.ac.uk Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, UKInstitute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UKSearch for more papers by this author Adrian Grounds, Corresponding Author Adrian Grounds ag113@cam.ac.uk Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, UKInstitute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 January 2008 https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.681Citations: 3AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume18, Issue1February 2008Pages 1-13 RelatedInformation

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Previous research in the UK has suggested that cross-cultural bias in personality disorder diagnosis might partly account for the smaller proportion of Black, relative to White, patients with personality disorder in secure psychiatric hospitals. Using the case-vignette method, we investigated cross-cultural clinical judgment bias in the diagnosis of personality disorder in African Caribbean men by 220 forensic psychiatrists in the UK. In the vignette describing possible DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder, Caucasians were 2.8 times more likely to be given a diagnosis of personality disorder than African Caribbeans. Diagnosis also varied according to the ethnicity of the clinicians. No cross-cultural bias was found in the vignette describing possible DSM-IV borderline personality disorder. These findings are important in relation to recent policies for offenders and others with personality disorder, and to the current focus on delivering race equality in mental health services in the UK. Ongoing debates about the strengths and limitations of the case-vignette method are also discussed.

John Gunn CBE retired as Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, London in 2002. In February 2003 he agreed to an unrehearsed interview at the Annual Meeting of the Forensic Psychiatry Faculty in Glasgow. He was interviewed by Adrian Grounds.

The purpose of this paper is to provide some reflections on time in relation to imprisonment. These arise from three interview based studies we have been carrying out involving distinctly different groups of ex-prisoners. We are focused particularly on the phenomena of post-release experience, and their implications for the ways in which we think about imprisonment effects. If a more accurate view of long-term imprisonment is that it permanently alters the life courses of those involved, removes part of their expected life history and causes harms beyond sentence, then we need not only to rethink how we assist released prisoners, but, more fundamentally, we need to rethink our ideas of prison as punishment. .

Undergraduate placements in forensic psychiatry enrich general medical training and help us face our prejudices, say Elisabeth Cottrell and Adrian Grounds

Concern about cases of wrongful conviction has arisen across different jurisdictions in recent decades. Some wrongly convicted individuals have spent many years in prison before their convictions are quashed, but little is known about the psychological effects of such miscarriages of justice on them. A preliminary descriptive clinical study examined eighteen men referred for psychiatric assessment after their convictions were quashed on appeal and they were released from long-term imprisonment. Substantial psychiatric morbidity and problems of psychological and social adjustment were evident in most cases. The difficulties of the wrongly convicted and their families were similar to those described in the clinical literature concerning other groups, such as war veterans, who have been exposed to chronic psychological trauma. At least some of the postrelease adjustment problems appeared to be a product of long-term imprisonment per se, which suggests that the "prison effects" literature has significant limitations. Research on the effects of long-term imprisonment has been carried out almost exclusively on prisoners in custody. What is of most importance and relevance is how the effects of long-term imprisonment are manifested after release.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and are not to be attributed to the Office for National Statistics or the Department of Health.

This article gives a U.K.-based perspective on the involvement of forensic psychiatry organizations in questions of political controversy. Medical professional bodies are fundamentally concerned to uphold good standards of clinical practice and patient welfare, and to uphold professional medical ethics. In our specialty, when acting as individual expert witnesses, we seek to serve the courts with objectivity and respect for the law. However, as members of our professional bodies we have a legitimate medical concern about how the law affects the mentally disordered as a class. We should articulate a collective view about what treating the mentally disordered justly and appropriately in the legal system means and should challenge the law when it fails to achieve this.