Likelihood Of Rehabilitation Research Articles

Outcome of Patients With a Nailed Hip Fracture Requiring Rehabilitation in a Hospital for Chronic Care

The rehabilitation outcome of seventy-eight consecutive patients with nailed hip fractures admitted to a hospital for chronic care from an orthopaedic department during 1977 through 1980 was followed for two years. They comprised only 13% of all hip fracture patients, the others being discharged to their own homes or old people's homes. Thirty-four of the admitted patients came originally from their own homes, 23 from old people's homes and the others from hospitals for chronic care. Each had been selected for long-term care by the orthopaedic surgeon and his staff as the likelihood of rehabilitation in his/her original habitat was considered poor. Because of an active rehabilitation at the hospital for chronic care, one-third of the surviving patients were discharged to their own homes or old people's homes within one year after the fracture. Most of these patients came originally from their own homes. Once discharged, the patients did not need to return to the hospital for chronic care.

The impact of mental health diagnoses on perceptions of risk of criminality.

Previous research has examined the relation between mental illness (MI) and perceptions of dangerousness, but less research has focused on its relation to perceived risk of criminality. Individuals with MI are perceived to be more dangerous than those without, and individuals with schizophrenia or substance abuse diagnoses are viewed as being more dangerous. Research also supports that race of individuals with MI plays an important role in the conceptualization and experience of stigma. The current study investigated the relation between MI, perceived criminality and race of diagnosed individuals. Two hundred ninety participants were randomly assigned to read one of the four vignettes and answer a series of questions. The first three vignettes depicted someone with MI (schizophrenia, depression or alcohol dependency), while the fourth vignette served as a control. Participants were asked to indicate likelihood of committing a future crime, severity of the future crime and the person's potential for rehabilitation. Levels of sympathy and trust, as well as perceived race of the person, were also measured. Presence of MI was a significant predictor where MI elicited higher levels of perceived risk of criminality. The remaining predictor variables (type of MI, familiarity with MI and criminality and perceived race) were not significant predictors. Exploratory analyses revealed the schizophrenia and alcohol dependency conditions elicited higher levels of perceived severity of future crimes. Perceived MI severity and likelihood of rehabilitation were all significantly correlated with perceived risk of criminality. Presence of MI appears to be the most important in influencing participant attitudes about perceived risk of criminality, though type of MI may influence beliefs about severity of future crimes. The impact of race could not be examined but should be examined in future studies.

Outliers in American juvenile justice: the need for statutory reform in North Carolina and New York.

There is a well-established and growing body of evidence from research that adolescents who commit crimes differ in many regards from their adult counterparts and are more susceptible to the negative effects of adjudication and incarceration in adult criminal justice systems. The age of criminal court jurisdiction in the United States has varied throughout history; yet, there are only two remaining states, New York and North Carolina, that continue to automatically charge 16 year olds as adults. This review traces the statutory history of juvenile justice in these two states with an emphasis on political and social factors that have contributed to their outlier status related to the age of criminal court jurisdiction. The neurobiological, psychological, and developmental aspects of the adolescent brain and personality, and how those issues relate both to a greater likelihood of rehabilitation in appropriate settings and to greater vulnerability in adult correctional facilities, are also reviewed. The importance of raising the age in New York and North Carolina not only lies in protecting incarcerated youths but also in preventing the associated stigma following release. Mental health practitioners are vital to the process of local and national juvenile justice reform. They can serve as experts on and advocates for appropriate mental health care and as experts on the adverse effects of the adult criminal justice system on adolescents.

Effects of Findings of Scientific Misconduct on Postdoctoral Trainees

Background: In an earlier study, we described the impact of formal misconduct determinations on established scientists’ careers, showing that many retained scientific careers, and more than half (51%) continued to publish at least one paper per year after their cases were decided. Here, we extend our study to examine the ramifications of final misconduct findings by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) on the careers of postdoctoral fellows. Methods: We tracked publication histories and attempted to track down all postdoctoral trainees found by ORI to have committed misconduct, and attempted to interview them about their experiences. Results: Trainees found to have committed misconduct between 1993 and 2007 whom we could trace were less likely to continue to publish than more established scientists, with only 11% publishing more than one paper per year after their misconduct determinations. Our assessment is constrained by our inability to reliably trace postdoctoral fellows, reflecting the fact that a majority of U.S. postdocs are from other countries. Conclusions: Because of concern about the fairness of severe punishment of trainees, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity appears to be shifting from funding debarments toward requiring education, mentorship, and oversight for trainees, which may enhance the likelihood of rehabilitation. Whether this policy succeeds remains to be seen.

Attitudes regarding life sentences for juvenile offenders.

Twice in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for juvenile offenders. Given the public nature of this issue, there is scant information on beliefs about imposing LWOP on juveniles. Attitudes on related issues suggest two possibilities. On the one hand, because public opinion regarding juvenile offenders has become somewhat less punitive recently, LWOP may be viewed as excessively harsh punishment. On the other hand, portrayal of some juvenile offenders as superpredators suggests that LWOP may still have public support. We used survey methodology and the unique "ninth justice paradigm" to examine how an offender's age influences beliefs about the appropriateness of LWOP, and the relationship between those beliefs and punishment-related ideologies. Results showed that, except in the case of murder, the majority of respondents disfavored imposing LWOP on juveniles, though a subset approved broad use of LWOP even for young offenders. In fact, after removing from consideration those who oppose LWOP under any circumstances, youthfulness of the offender has little impact on the beliefs about the types of crimes in which LWOP should be imposed (Study 1) or the mean sentence lengths imposed on juvenile offenders (Study 2). Respondents' punishment goals influenced their attitudes, as did beliefs about the likelihood of rehabilitation and reform. Harsh judgments of juveniles who commit serious crimes may result from dispositional attributions of youthful offenders as irredeemable.

Sentencing Problem Gamblers in New Zealand

Any recognition of the societal impact of problem gambling necessarily implies that there is an effect on the incidence of crime. However current New Zealand Department of Corrections statistics, which extensively chart drug and alcohol abuse in prisoners, lack any reference to the incidence of gambling addiction. The invisibility of gambling addition, as a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing, arises from a misunderstanding of agency in addiction which leads to drug and alcohol abuse being factored into sentence programmes while problem gambling is often viewed as a matter of choice. There is no principle of sentencing which distinguishes between these various addictions and the failure to factor gambling addiction in sentencing decreases the likelihood of rehabilitation and so increases the likelihood of re-offending.

Study Questions Youths’ Ability To Understand Trial Process

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Legal NewsFull AccessStudy Questions Youths’ Ability To Understand Trial ProcessChristine LehmannChristine LehmannSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:4 Apr 2003https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.38.7.0005Juveniles are often transferred to adult court to stand trial for serious crimes. A new study shows, however, that they are less likely than adults to understand the legal process, have good decision-making skills, and form an accurate assessment of their legal situation.The study was released last month by the MacArthur Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, which conducted the study. The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Law and Human Behavior.Moreover, adolescents below the age of 15 are less likely than adults to recognize the risks inherent in their legal decisions or consider the long-term consequences of those choices, according to clinical psychologist Thomas Grisso, Ph.D., the lead researcher and a professor of psychiatry and coordinator of the psychiatry and law program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.“We found that younger juveniles had difficulty with abstract reasoning including having an accurate perspective of time, Grisso told Psychiatric News. “For example, a defense attorney asked a young client whether he understood what ‘being put away for a long time’ meant. The client responded, ‘It’s like being sent to my room for a weekend.’ ”Grisso is one of the winners of 2000 and 2002 Manfred S. Guttmacher Award, cosponsored by APA and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.Purpose and SampleThe purpose of the study “was to learn about the abilities of youths as defendants in their trials,” said Grisso. The researchers evaluated their ability to understand their trials, assist their attorneys, and make decisions in the trial process, which are abilities the law requires for defendants to be competent to stand trial.The researchers also evaluated the youth’s decision making as defendants and the explanations for their choices using several dimensions of psychosocial maturity. The psychosocial dimensions looked at whether an individual considered future events or consequences in everyday life, recognized and evaluated the risks in potentially harmful or dangerous activities, and resisted peer influence.The sample was made up of approximately 1,400 male and female adolescents aged 11 to 17 and adults aged 18 to 24 in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Northern and Eastern Virginia, and Northern Florida. Half the participants were in jail or detained in juvenile detention centers, and the other half lived in the community and had little or no involvement with the juvenile justice system. The participants were matched by age, gender, ethnicity, and social class.The results showed that adolescents aged 11 to 14 were three times more likely to have trouble understanding the legal process and applying sound reasoning to their legal decisions than older adolescents and adults.Detained juveniles and adults had lower intelligence scores than the community sample. “Because a greater proportion of adolescents in the juvenile justice system had below-average intelligence than [those] in the community, the risk for incompetence to stand trial is even greater among adolescents in the juvenile justice community,” said Grisso.Juvenile detainees also had higher rates of alcohol and drug use, anger, depression or anxiety, somatic complaints, suicidal ideation, and thought disturbances than youth in the community. Juveniles were also more likely than adults to comply with the wishes of authority figures, such as confessing to a crime when interrogated by police officers or accepting a prosecutor’s offer of a plea bargain, said Grisso.Study ImplicationsLouis Kraus, M.D., chair of APA’s Committee on Juvenile Justice Issues, told Psychiatric News, “I have heard of police officers telling younger juveniles that if they confessed to committing a crime, they could go home that night. I have found that younger juveniles can become highly anxious when confronted with their actions and are unable to communicate as clearly as under normal circumstances.”Grisso said, “The findings have legal and practice implications. States that allow juveniles below age 15 to be transferred to adult criminal court to stand trial for serious crimes such as murder might consider raising the lower age limit to 15 or requiring a determination of the youth’s competence to stand trial before allowing a transfer to adult criminal court. We also recommend that defense attorneys spend more time with their clients instructing them about the legal process.”The study did not assess dangerousness or likelihood of rehabilitation, two common criteria used to decide whether individuals should be tried in adult or juvenile court, according to Grisso.The study, “Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents’ and Adults’ Capacities as Trial Defendants,” is posted on the Web at www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/. ▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Juvenile Court Judges' Perceptions of What Factors Affect Juvenile Offenders' Likelihood of Rehabilitation

ABSTRACTAn instrument was developed to measure whether judges perceive the likelihood of rehabilitation to be influenced by extra‐legal factors. A self‐administered questionnaire was sent to 1,040 juvenile court judges across the United States. Two indices‐extra‐legal and legal‐were created to measure the relationship between judges' perceptions and the factors they consider in their transfer decisions. Primary analysis used frequencies, cross‐tabulations, and measures of association.The factors that judges may consider in their transfer decisions are specified and vary according to state statutes. Extra‐legal factors are never included in the statutes as factors that may be considered. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that judges consider extra‐legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. The results suggest that both male and non‐minority judges' perceive that extra‐legal characteristics affect an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. All judges seem to believe that family structure and prior record are almost equally important factors in determining offenders' likelihood of rehabilitation. Thus, although judges consider legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation, they also include criteria not explicitly permitted by law.