Reflections

Abstract

Abstract This chapter draws out the implications of the findings of this study for criminological and legal theory and for the rights and interests of individuals. It demonstrates that law and policy seeks to shape ‘dangerous’ individuals into responsible citizens by treating them as responsible for reforming themselves. Given the clear priority accorded to security over individual liberty in the ‘balance’ struck by human rights law, the offer of rehabilitation may be understood as an effort to render coercive preventive measures taken in the pursuit of security more palatable for liberal governments. Furthermore, reliance on rehabilitative interventions as a means of ‘balancing’ competing rights in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an inadequate safeguard against disproportionate punishment. It sketches out some modest suggestions for addressing these problems. These proposals would ensure more parsimonious use of preventive detention under both the criminal law and mental health law, provide opportunities for rehabilitation on a voluntary basis, and facilitate more realistic tests of recidivism risk. These proposals will have to contend with the symbolic nature of efforts to reassure the public that they are protected from individuals who provoke fear. Creating a productive dialogue between the public, policymakers, experts, people who work within criminal justice or mental health services, and those affected by penal and mental health policies, could be one way forward.