Recidivism in Australia : findings and future research - Australian ...

20
Recidivism in Australia: findings and future research
Another self-reported offending study is the AIC’s Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA)
program, established in 1999 and currently operating in nine police stations or watchhouses
across six states and territories (see Makkai 1999). The study involves an intervieweradministered
survey conducted with police detainees within 48 hours of their arrest.
It is administered quarterly and involves the collection of self-reported drug use, prior
arrest and prior incarceration data. The self-reported data on recent drug use data
are verified by urinalysis. The results from this study show that the majority of police
detainees had used drugs and test positive to drugs at the time of their arrest. Around 18
percent of detainees have been imprisoned in the 12 months prior to their current arrest.
Self-reported offending data are often heralded as one of the most reliable and useful sources
of information for recidivism research, for the reason that the information is derived direct
from the individual. As a result, the self-report methodology has the capacity to identify
and measure offending behaviour that has not yet, or may never, come to the attention
of the criminal justice system. It therefore aids in bridging the gap between actual offending
and administrative criminal justice data. This is crucial when attempting to assess recidivism
levels for offenders involved in criminal behaviours that rarely come to police attention, such
as sex offending.
However, self-reported data are not without error. Issues of accuracy and reliability must
be considered. The key assumption underlying the self-report method is that individuals
are willing and able to report their offending reliably, but it is well known that this methodology
may over- or underestimate offending because offenders:
• may choose not to divulge information about offences because they have not yet been
apprehended for them or for other reasons such as shame and embarrassment
•
•
•
•
seek to shock or impress an interviewer by exaggerating their offending behaviour
cannot recall with accuracy or detail the events that occurred in the past – particularly
in the distant past, such as when they were a child. This is especially true in the case
of recidivist offenders involved in high frequency offending on a regular basis, or for
particular sub-groups such as drug offenders who, because of the effect of long term
drug use, may not have the capacity for accurate recall
do not understand the questions being asked of them and therefore unintentionally
omit information or provide incorrect information
do not share a common understanding of what behaviours are defined in law as criminal.
For example, young men who engage in pub brawls may not consider that particular
type of behaviour to be illegal, even though, according to legislation, it could result
in an assault charge being laid against them. Similarly, in South Australia, where possession
of a small amount of marijuana attracts an infringement notice, anecdotal evidence
indicates that many people believe that such activity is not illegal.