例外状态?刑事司法系统和COVID应对措施

IF 1.5 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
{"title":"例外状态?刑事司法系统和COVID应对措施","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/02645505211064071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Special Issue of the journal explores the ways in which different countries adapted probation services in response to the public health restrictions imposed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue contains contributions from several jurisdictions including Austria, the Netherlands, England and Wales and Scotland. A notable feature is the way probation services, like in many other areas of life, were required to adapt rapidly to restrictions in face-to-face contact, necessitating a move towards online modes of engagement. These included models of ‘blended supervision’ involving phone contacts and door-stop visits, videocalls and other uses of technology. Many of the contributions to the issue note both the potential benefits of more adaptative use of technology (including increased compliance), and more creative approaches to supervision, as well as the downsides in terms of meaningful engagement. Dominey and colleagues explore the implementation of a blended approach to supervision in a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) in England in the summer of 2020 following the implementation of an Exceptional Delivery Model (HMIP, 2020). Their research, which focused on staff experiences of the changes in practice during this time, highlights some important findings about the blurring of the boundaries between work and home life, in the context where most people were required to work from home. This theme is also picked up in Phillips’ and colleagues’ research of practice within theNational Probation Service (NPS). As well as having to adapt to different ways of working, staff found themselves in situations where they were dealing with difficult and sensitive information in their own living spaces. This ‘work-life spill over’was particularly difficult in the context of isolation from colleagues and where the space to discuss ongoing challenges or seek support was diminished. In Austria, as Stempkowski andGrafl document, the restrictions led to similar adaptions, and while most probation staff reported the ability to maintain contacts with their clients, there were challenges for some clients because of accessibility (not having a telephone, a suitable residence, or language barriers). In the Netherlands research with staff and supervisees conducted by Sturm and colleagues also showed, differential impacts. Some services users found the move to online supervision to be less intrusive. Less of their time and money was taken up with the requirement to attend meetings, and so some of the ‘pains of supervision’ (see Durnescu, 2011), were Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"States of exception? Criminal justice systems and the COVID response\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02645505211064071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Special Issue of the journal explores the ways in which different countries adapted probation services in response to the public health restrictions imposed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue contains contributions from several jurisdictions including Austria, the Netherlands, England and Wales and Scotland. A notable feature is the way probation services, like in many other areas of life, were required to adapt rapidly to restrictions in face-to-face contact, necessitating a move towards online modes of engagement. These included models of ‘blended supervision’ involving phone contacts and door-stop visits, videocalls and other uses of technology. Many of the contributions to the issue note both the potential benefits of more adaptative use of technology (including increased compliance), and more creative approaches to supervision, as well as the downsides in terms of meaningful engagement. Dominey and colleagues explore the implementation of a blended approach to supervision in a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) in England in the summer of 2020 following the implementation of an Exceptional Delivery Model (HMIP, 2020). Their research, which focused on staff experiences of the changes in practice during this time, highlights some important findings about the blurring of the boundaries between work and home life, in the context where most people were required to work from home. This theme is also picked up in Phillips’ and colleagues’ research of practice within theNational Probation Service (NPS). As well as having to adapt to different ways of working, staff found themselves in situations where they were dealing with difficult and sensitive information in their own living spaces. This ‘work-life spill over’was particularly difficult in the context of isolation from colleagues and where the space to discuss ongoing challenges or seek support was diminished. In Austria, as Stempkowski andGrafl document, the restrictions led to similar adaptions, and while most probation staff reported the ability to maintain contacts with their clients, there were challenges for some clients because of accessibility (not having a telephone, a suitable residence, or language barriers). In the Netherlands research with staff and supervisees conducted by Sturm and colleagues also showed, differential impacts. Some services users found the move to online supervision to be less intrusive. Less of their time and money was taken up with the requirement to attend meetings, and so some of the ‘pains of supervision’ (see Durnescu, 2011), were Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice\",\"PeriodicalId\":45814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PROBATION JOURNAL\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PROBATION JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211064071\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROBATION JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211064071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本期特刊探讨了不同国家如何调整缓刑服务,以应对新冠肺炎大流行后实施的公共卫生限制。本期杂志收录了奥地利、荷兰、英格兰和威尔士以及苏格兰等多个司法管辖区的稿件。一个显著的特点是,与生活中的许多其他领域一样,缓刑服务被要求迅速适应面对面接触的限制,这就需要转向在线参与模式。其中包括“混合监督”模式,包括电话联系、上门拜访、视频通话和其他技术使用。对这一问题的许多贡献既指出了更具适应性地使用技术(包括提高合规性)和更具创造性的监督方法的潜在好处,也指出了有意义的参与方面的不利因素。Dominey及其同事在实施特殊交付模式(HMIP,2020)后,于2020年夏天在英格兰的一家社区康复公司(CRC)探索了混合监管方法的实施。他们的研究重点关注员工在此期间实践变化的经历,强调了在大多数人被要求在家工作的背景下,工作和家庭生活之间界限模糊的一些重要发现。菲利普斯及其同事对国家缓刑管理局(NPS)实践的研究也提到了这一主题。除了必须适应不同的工作方式外,工作人员还发现自己在自己的生活空间里处理困难和敏感的信息。这种“工作-生活溢出”在与同事隔离的情况下尤其困难,在这种情况下,讨论持续挑战或寻求支持的空间减少了。正如Stempkowski和Grafl所记录的那样,在奥地利,这些限制导致了类似的适应,尽管大多数缓刑监督人员报告说有能力与客户保持联系,但由于无障碍(没有电话、合适的住所或语言障碍),一些客户面临着挑战。在荷兰,Sturm及其同事对员工和被监管人员进行的研究也表明,存在差异性影响。一些服务用户发现,转向在线监管的做法侵扰性较小。他们更少的时间和金钱被要求参加会议所占用,因此一些“监督的痛苦”(见Durnescu,2011)是社论《社区与刑事司法杂志》
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
States of exception? Criminal justice systems and the COVID response
This Special Issue of the journal explores the ways in which different countries adapted probation services in response to the public health restrictions imposed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue contains contributions from several jurisdictions including Austria, the Netherlands, England and Wales and Scotland. A notable feature is the way probation services, like in many other areas of life, were required to adapt rapidly to restrictions in face-to-face contact, necessitating a move towards online modes of engagement. These included models of ‘blended supervision’ involving phone contacts and door-stop visits, videocalls and other uses of technology. Many of the contributions to the issue note both the potential benefits of more adaptative use of technology (including increased compliance), and more creative approaches to supervision, as well as the downsides in terms of meaningful engagement. Dominey and colleagues explore the implementation of a blended approach to supervision in a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) in England in the summer of 2020 following the implementation of an Exceptional Delivery Model (HMIP, 2020). Their research, which focused on staff experiences of the changes in practice during this time, highlights some important findings about the blurring of the boundaries between work and home life, in the context where most people were required to work from home. This theme is also picked up in Phillips’ and colleagues’ research of practice within theNational Probation Service (NPS). As well as having to adapt to different ways of working, staff found themselves in situations where they were dealing with difficult and sensitive information in their own living spaces. This ‘work-life spill over’was particularly difficult in the context of isolation from colleagues and where the space to discuss ongoing challenges or seek support was diminished. In Austria, as Stempkowski andGrafl document, the restrictions led to similar adaptions, and while most probation staff reported the ability to maintain contacts with their clients, there were challenges for some clients because of accessibility (not having a telephone, a suitable residence, or language barriers). In the Netherlands research with staff and supervisees conducted by Sturm and colleagues also showed, differential impacts. Some services users found the move to online supervision to be less intrusive. Less of their time and money was taken up with the requirement to attend meetings, and so some of the ‘pains of supervision’ (see Durnescu, 2011), were Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PROBATION JOURNAL
PROBATION JOURNAL CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
26.70%
发文量
37
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信