Simon Matoori;  Bharti Khurana, Marta Chadwick Balcom, Johannes M Froehlich, Sonja Janssen, Rosemarie Forstner, Ann D King, Dow-Mu Koh, Andreas Gutzeit

Abstract

Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries both in Europe and across the world implemented strict stay-at-home orders. These measures helped to slow the spread of the coronavirus but also led to increased mental and physical health issues for the domestically confined population, including an increase in the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in many countries. IPV is defined as behavior that inflicts physical, psychological, or sexual harm within an intimate relationship. We believe that as radiologists, we can make a difference by being cognizant of this condition, raising an alert when appropriate and treating suspected victims with care and empathy. The aim of this Special Report is to raise awareness of IPV among radiologists and to suggest strategies by which to identify and support IPV victims. KEY POINTS: • The COVID-19 pandemic led to a marked increase in the number of intimate partner violence (IPV) cases, potentially leading to increased emergency department visits and radiological examinations. • Most IPV-related fractures affect the face, fingers, and upper trunk, and may easily be misinterpreted as routine trauma. • Radiologists should carefully review the medical history of suspicious cases, discuss the suspicion with the referring physician, and proactively engage in a private conversation with the patient, pointing to actionable resources for IPV victims.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2020). Research on violence against children during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidance to inform ethical data collection and evidence generation. UNICEF, New York

This report addresses key questions on generating violence against children (VAC) evidence that may arise during the pandemic and includes a decision tree to guide those considering conducting research and data collection on VAC during COVID-19. [Source: UNICEF].

 

Overuse of imprisonment 
The question of imprisonment is complex, as prison population continually rises both in the Council of Europe member States and globally. Prison overcrowding is therefore a very real and present issue. The overuse of imprisonment and its detrimental impact on criminal justice systems, individuals and societies, has led EU member states countries to implement alternative policies, alternatives to pre-trial detention, at the very early stages of the criminal justice process.

Emergency measures 
In 2020 the world has been affected by the pandemic of Covid-19 which had a huge impact on the criminal justice systems, both prison and probation. As mentioned in the document of the PC-CP Working Group of the Council of Europe, “during Covid-19 pandemic times, a number of countries have introduced emergency measures aimed at decreasing prison numbers and reducing prison overcrowding like: reducing as much as possible the number of accused or sentenced persons sent to detention centres and prisons, releasing certain categories of prisoners (vulnerable prisoners due to their age or stage of health), juveniles, pregnant women or women with infant children, prisoners planned to be released in the near future or low risk offenders”. This criminal justice policy implemented in different countries might or could also be used for pre-trial detainees.

Pre-trial detention alternatives 
Alternatives to pre-trial detention have been, explicitly or implicitly, on CEP’s and EU’s agenda for several years and in many contexts, but now with the impact of Covid-19 in all criminal justice systems, it has become a much more present and crucial issue to discuss and important to implement since prisons might be(come) niduses of infections. Alternative measures to detention promote social rehabilitation and reintegration of the offenders, which is one of the key aims for using such measures. These alternative measures have also several other benefits, like contributing to reduce prisons overcrowding and promoting public security, the latter particularly through the reduction of reoffending.

EU member states 
With this in mind, the Confederation of European Probation wished to explore the extent to which alternatives to pre-trial detention are used in the different EU member states, what was/is the impact of Covid-19 in the use of these alternatives, and what CEP or the EU could do to promote a more frequent use of these alternative measures to pre-trial detention.

Questionnaire 
The Confederation of European Probation sent out a questionnaire with five questions to 38 EU member states jurisdictions. A total of 19 replies was received from the following jurisdictions: Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Belgium (Wallonia), Catalonia, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxemburg, Malta, Sweden, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Moldova , Turkey and Ukraine.

 

Press release / 19 October 2020 / Brussels

As announced by the President Ursula von der Leyen at the State of the European Union, the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy have today put forward a Joint Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning implementation of restrictive measures (sanctions) against serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide.

The Joint Proposal for a Council Regulation is one of the legal acts required by Council to proceed with the establishment of the new horizontal sanctions regime. It complements the Council Decision that is being proposed by High Representative Josep Borrell and that – once adopted by the Council – will establish the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime.

Once in force, the new EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime will provide the EU with greater flexibility to target those responsible for serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide, no matter where they occur or who is responsible. It is expected that the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime will consist of measures such as asset freezes and travel bans. On the latter, the Joint Proposal would also give, for the first time, the Commission oversight on the implementation of the travel bans.

The new regime will not replace existing geographic sanctions regimes, some of which already address human rights violations and abuses, for example in Syria, Belarus or Venezuela.

These proposals strongly demonstrate the EU's commitment to support human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of international law around the world. They respond to the political agreement by EU Foreign Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council in December 2019 to move forward with the establishment of such a regime.

The EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime is also a key deliverable proposed by the High Representative and the Commission in the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020 – 2024 as part of the Joint Communication adopted in March 2020.

Next steps

The proposed Council Regulation will be discussed by Member States in the Council in parallel to the High Representative's Proposal for a Council Decision.

Members of the College said:

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, said: “We must stand up for human rights and fundamental freedoms. An EU sanctions regime that holds to account those responsible for abuses and violations of human rights is long overdue. We trust that the Council will demonstrate its determination to support the Commission in this objective by adopting our proposal.”

Josep Borrell, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President for a Stronger Europe in the World, said: "Human rights are under attack around the world. The new EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime will be a powerful tool to hold accountable those responsible for serious human rights violations and abuses around the world. This is an opportunity for Europe not only to stand up for its values but to act.”

Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President for an Economy that Works for People, said: “We are putting forward a zero tolerance policy against those who abuse and violate human rights around the world. Today's proposals offer broad possibilities to respond to such actions, and show our commitment to defend the values we believe in.”

Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union said: “These proposals are an important step towards a much-needed sanctions regime. By enforcing our human rights sanctions efficiently and effectively, EU countries can make sure that there is no escape for those who create human pain and suffering. As soon as the regime is adopted by the Council, the Commission will firmly support these efforts.”

Background

EU sanctions help to achieve key EU objectives such as preserving peace, strengthening international security, and consolidating and supporting democracy, international law and human rights. They are targeted at those whose actions endanger these values, and intend to reduce as much as possible any adverse consequences on the civilian population. The EU has about 40 different sanctions regimes currently in place.

The Council Regulation is needed to detail the measures of the sanctions regime established by the Council Decision that can affect the functioning of the EU's internal market. It is directly binding on the national administrative authorities as well as on private operators, whereas the Council Decision is legally binding on EU Member States.

For more information on the EU sanctions policy and human rights policy:

Council of the European Union and EU sanctions policy

European Commission and EU sanctions

European External Action Service and EU sanctions

Overview of the EU's sanctions currently in place: EU Sanctions map

Priorities for the EU human rights and democracy policy for 2020-2024: Joint Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024

olicing the Pandemic – Findings from a 6-wave panel study

Wednesday 4th November 2020

13:00 - 15:00 London – BST

‘Policing the pandemic’ is a 6-wave panel study conducted online between April and August 2020. We surveyed the same group of people every three weeks to understand how their views about governmental institutions, and especially legal authorities, changed over time in the UK during the first COVID-19 lockdown and its direct aftermath. Participants were from 10 metropolitan areas across Great Britain.

This seminar will present emerging findings from the study. Presentations will focus on: (1) compliance with the lockdown restrictions; (2) the importance of social identification with the police and NHS; (3) support for enhanced police powers; and (4) fear of COVID-19.

Speakers and presentations:

Dr. Krisztián Pósch (UCL) – ‘Policing the pandemic’ longitudinal study

Prof. Jonathan Jackson (LSE) – ‘We are all in this together’ – Compliance with the UK lockdown

Dr. Arabella Kyprianides (UCL) – Identification, legitimacy, and cooperation during trying times

Dr. Julia Yesberg (UCL) – Support for enhanced police powers during the COVID-19 crisis

Dr. Reka Solymosi (UoM) – Functional and dysfunctional fear of COVID-19: A classification scheme

Chair: Prof. Ben Bradford (UCL)

This webinar is free and open to all.

Thu, 12 November 2020

16:00 – 17:30 CET

Title: Halfway Home: Race, Punishment and the Afterlife of Mass Incarceration

Abstract: While more people are incarcerated in the United States than in any other nation in the history of the western world, the prison is but one (comparatively) small part of a vast carceral landscape.

The 600,000 people released each year join nearly 5 million people already on probation or parole, 12 million who are processed through a county jail, 19 million U.S. adults estimated to have a felony conviction, and the staggering 79 million Americans with a criminal record. But the size of the U.S. carceral state is second in consequence to its reach. Incarcerated people are greeted by more than 45,000 laws, policies and administrative sanctions upon release that limit their participation in the labor and housing markets, in the culture and civic life of the city, and even within their families.

They are subject to rules other people are not subject to, and shoulder responsibilities other people are not expected to shoulder. They live in a "supervised society," a hidden social world we've produced through our laws, policies and everyday practices, and in fact, occupy an alternate form of political membership—what I call “carceral citizenship.”

This presentation examines the afterlife of mass incarceration, attending to how U.S. criminal justice policy has changed the social life of the city and altered the contours of American Democracy one (most often poor black American) family at a time. Drawing on ethnographic data collected across three iconic American cities—Chicago, Detroit and New York—we will explore what it means to live in a supervised society and how we might find our way out.

Biography: Reuben Jonathan Miller is a sociologist, criminologist and a social worker who teaches at the University of Chicago in the School of Social Service Administration where he studies and writes about race, democracy, and the social life of the city. He has been a member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton New Jersey, a fellow at the New America Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, and a visiting scholar at the University of Texas at Austin and Dartmouth College. His book, Halfway Home: Race, Punishment and the Afterlife of Mass Incarceration will be published by Little Brown and Company in February of 2021. A native son of Chicago, Professor Miller lives with his wife and children on the city’s Southside.

Format:

Director of SCCJR, Alistair Fraser (University of Glasgow) will welcome participants to our Annual Lecture

Chair: Fergus McNeill (University of Glasgow)

Lecture from Reuben Jonathan Miller (University of Chicago)

Discussant: Marguerite Schinkel (University of Glasgow)

Q&A chaired by Fergus McNeill

Please note this will take place at 3pm (UK time) and we will send a Zoom link to those who have registered nearer the time of the lecture.

Informationsdienst Wissenschaft - idw - Pressemitteilung
Universität zu Köln, Gabriele Meseg-Rutzen, 26.10.2020 13:20

Victims earn up to 12.9 per cent less in the aftermath of a crime and are more dependent on social benefits / evaluation of more than 800,000 Dutch police files

Crime victims forfeit income in the labour market in the long term. This is shown by an empirical analysis of data on more than 800,000 crime victims by Professor Anna Bindler, economist of the Cluster of Excellence ECONtribute: Markets & Public Policy at the universities of Cologne and Bonn, together with Nadine Ketel (Assistant Professor, Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands). The Dutch register data on victims of crime cover a period of twelve years, from 2005 to 2016. Using anonymized numbers, the researchers link the data to labour market outcomes collected since 1999.
Across offences, both males and females earn up to 12.9 per cent less than before the crime. At the same time, they receive social benefits on up to 6 percent more days per month. Reasons for the reduction in income may be a change to lower-paid jobs, or victims losing their employment because they are no longer able to continue their work due to physical or mental health impacts of the incident.
Bindler and Ketel differentiate between violent crimes (assault, sex offences, and threat of violence) and property crimes (burglary and robbery). The income of women declines more than that of men for all examined offences. One year after a violent crime, earnings decrease by up to 7.5 per cent for males and 10.4 per cent for females. After property crimes, especially robbery, males earn up to 8.4 per cent less, while females face a decline in income of up to 12.9 per cent. The researchers investigate domestic violence separately and find a larger effect of up to 17.9 per cent lower earnings in addition to a strongly increased dependence on social benefits.
Overall, the economists calculated an aggregated loss of earnings of about 366 million euros within only the first year after an assault. ‘Our research provides an indication of the social costs of crime’, said Anna Bindler, professor at ECONtribute: Markets & Public Policy and at the University of Cologne. ‘The results could be an impetus for appropriate compensation payments or further assistance for victims of crime, such as labour market programmes.’
The study was conducted within the framework of ECONtribute. It is the only Cluster of Excellence in economics that is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and a joint initiative of the universities of Bonn and Cologne. The Cluster’s research focuses on markets at the interface between business, politics, and society. The Cluster aims to advance a new paradigm for the analysis of market failure in light of fundamental societal, technological, and economic challenges, such as increasing inequality and political polarization or global financial crises.
In an episode of the podcast "Probable Causation" Anna Bindler will discuss her study with Jennifer Doleac. It will be published tomorrow (27 October): https://www.probablecausation.com/index

Media Contact:
Professor Anna Bindler, Ph. D.
Faculty of Economics, Management, and Social Sciences
+49 221 470-7303
bindler@wiso.uni-koeln.de
Press and Communications Team:
Carolin Jackermeier
ECONtribute: Markets & Public Policy
+49 221 470-7258
jackermeier@wiso.uni-koeln.de
 

Workshop 1 and 2 December 2020, Online

Due to the current situation with Covid-19 and the travel restrictions that many jurisdictions are facing, it was decided to hold Juveniles & Young Adults in Prison and Probation Workshop fully online. Two half-day morning sessions are planned to take place on the 1 and 2 December 2020 via online Zoom platform. The expert workshop will address the perspective of different European experts in the field of juveniles and young adults who have committed crimes, both from interventions in the community and closed regime institutions. Among others, topics will include intervention, pilot institutions, education and psycho-social aspects in the juvenile justice systems and much more.

Event Date & Location: 1 and 2 December, Online

PROGRAM
Draft agenda of the workshop can be found here.

 

The competency to stand trial process is designed to protect the rights of people who do not understand the charges against them and are unable to assist in their own defense. But across the country, this process has become increasingly overburdened and delayed, causing people to languish in jail while states contend with the high associated costs. 

Our latest report, Just and Well: Rethinking How States Approach Competency to Stand Trial, outlines the 10 most effective strategies state officials can pursue to improve the competency to stand trial process. Its recommendations represent a consensus view of what competency to stand trial should ideally look like. 

Copyright © 2020 The Council of State Governments Justice Center, All rights reserved.
 

DW SCIENCE

Breaking social distancing rules can feel less risky with people you know than with strangers. It's a cognitive bias that's driving coronavirus infections.

Passing by a coughing stranger on a sidewalk during a global pandemic or having coffee with a work friend — for most people, one of those two scenarios will sound considerably safer than the other. 

We know the work friend, they know us. They don't appear unwell, and neither do we. Even if it may be risky to sit close together and remove our masks, it doesn't really feel threatening — unlike the coughing stranger.

But it's precisely those interactions between people who know each other that may be contributing to a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases.

"The real threat we often overlook and don't realize is there," says Tegan Cruwys, a clinical psychologist and researcher at the Australian National University, "is our closest networks — our family, our friends, our valued communities."

How we're wired to think about risk

Feeling the threat of contagion may not be as palpable when we're with the people we know and like. That's not just because we prefer to spend time with them than strangers, but also because we are wired to assume our friends are less threatening. 

As social creatures, when we identify with people and see them as being part of our community — "one of us" — Cruwys says, we have a sense that they are trustworthy and will act in our best interests.

That means we are less likely to perceive them as contagious, and we will be more tolerant of any symptoms they may have. As a result, we're more likely to take risks around them — sit close together, share food, or hug them.

But just because we think like that doesn't necessarily mean the people closest to us are less risky when it comes to disease transmission, says Cruwys: "Contagious diseases don't respect those group boundaries."

On Saturday (24.10.2020), Germany recorded 14,500 new infections — the highest number recorded in a single day since the start of the pandemic. 

Lothar Wieler, president of the Robert Koch Institute, Germany's federal disease control body, says the new outbreaks don't appear to be occurring in public spaces, such as at workplaces or on public transport. Instead, the main source of infection, he says, are private gatherings.

"It's mostly coming together in private — at parties and [church] services and weddings," Wieler told DW. "We shouldn't have too many of these events," he said.

Not only do parties and weddings attract larger crowds, but crowds of people who have a shared social identity — who know each other and want to spend time together.

Research suggests that it is in these more intimate settings, or so-called "psychological crowds," that our perception of potential health risks is lowered — meaning we tend to accept riskier behavior from others and engage in it ourselves.