Interdisciplinary Review of General, Forensic, Prison and Military Psychiatry and Psychology and the related subjects of Behavior and Law with the occasional notes and comments by Michael Novakhov, M.D. (Mike Nova).
Dr. John Livesley is Professor Emeritus at the University of
British Columbia having previously been Professor and at one time Head of the
Department of Psychiatry. He obtained a Ph.D in psychology from the University
of Liverpool in 1969 and a medical degree from the same university in 1974.
Subsequently, he trained in psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh. He has
held academic appointments in psychology at the University of Liverpool and in
psychiatry at the Universities of Edinburgh and Calgary. Dr. Livesley’s
research focuses on the classification, assessment, and aetiology of personality
disorders and the development of an integrated approach to treatment. He is a
Fellow the Royal Society of Canada and editor of the Journal of Personality
Disorders. He has served as advisor to the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV and is a member
of the DSM-V Working Group on the classification of personality disorder. He has
made empirical and theoretical contributions to the literature on personality
disorder including several books: Practical Management of Personality Disorder
(2003) and three edited books – DSM-IV Personality Disorders (1995), the
Handbook of Personality Disorders (2001), and Severe Personality Disorders
(2007; co-edited with Bert van Luyn and Solaman Akthar).
The following is a list of journals that deal with criminology
and criminal justice related topics. This is in no way to be considered an
endorsed or approved list. It is merely an alphabetized list of publications
dealing with crime and justice issues.
It should be noted at the outset, even stressed, that there are
no official rankings of journals in this field. A number of researchers have
attempted to address this and related subjects in a systematic fashion. Those
interested in this matter are advised to read these works and draw their own
conclusions. See, for example:
Clear, T. R. (2001) "Has Academic Criminal Justice Come of
Age?" Justice Quarterly, 18:713.
Sorensen, J. and R. Pilgrim (2002) "The Institutional
Affiliations of Authors in Leading Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals,"
Journal of Criminal Justice, 30:11-18.
Sorensen, J., C. Snell, and J. J. Rodriguez (2006) "An
Assessment of Criminal Justice and Criminology Journal Prestige," Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 17:297-322.
For a complete annotated list of journals in the field
(including orientation and mission, general philosophy, editorial focus and
policy, and complete contact information) see, Michael S. Vaughn, et al,
"Journals in Criminal Justice and Criminology: An Updated and Expanded Guide
for Authors," Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol 15 (1), Spring
2004, pp. 61 - 192.
Mr. Christie issued a statement in response to articles published this week in The New York Times that examined the state’s troubled halfway-house system, which has beds for roughly 3,500 parolees and state inmates finishing their sentences.
The system has existed since the 1990s, and state regulation has long been lax — The Times found that the halfway houses, many of which are as large as prisons, have been plagued by violence, drugs, gangs and escapes.
Mr. Christie, a Republican, has deep ties to the company that dominates the halfway-house industry in New Jersey and across the country, Community Education Centers. His close friend and political adviser William J. Palatucci is a senior executive of the company, and Mr. Christie has often visited and praised its facilities.
“I am calling on the Department of Corrections commissioner, Gary Lanigan, to immediately step up inspections of all halfway houses and report any violations and recommendations for changes to the deputy chief of staff for policy,” Mr. Christie said in the statement.
“While many of the disturbing accounts reported in today’s New York Times documenting lax oversight and accountability in some of New Jersey’s halfway houses took place prior to this administration, we have an obligation to ensure the community placements program is effectively and safely operating today,” he said.
Democrats in the State Legislature issued statements on Monday condemning the administration’s oversight and said they would hold hearings on the system.
Before the articles were published, the Christie administration had responded to The Times’s questions about the system by saying it would increase monitoring. On Monday, Mr. Christie said such measures had already led to “a dramatic decrease in the number of walkaways under this administration,” referring to escapes from halfway houses.
At least 181 inmates and parolees escaped halfway-house custody in the first five months of 2012 — a 35 percent decline when compared with a similar period in 2009, before Mr. Christie took office. Roughly 5,100 people have escaped since 2005, The Times found.
State and county agencies spend roughly $105 million a year on halfway houses in New Jersey, which are intended to offer drug treatment, job training and other services to help inmates’ transition into society. Community Education received about $71 million in the last fiscal year.
Community Education posted a statement on its Web site defending its programs. It said the articles in The Times were “an error-filled and gross exaggeration.”
Assemblyman Charles Mainor, a Democrat who is chairman of the Law and Public Safety Committee, said he would scrutinize state oversight, vowing to “to take whatever legislative action is necessary to remedy these problems.”
A version of this article appeared in print on June 19, 2012, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Christie Orders Stepped-Up Inspections by State of Halfway Houses.
ARCATA, Calif. — Faced with growing chaos in the state’s medical marijuana industry, this city in Northern California passed an ordinance in 2008 that meticulously detailed, over 11 pages, how the drug could be grown and sold here.
Medical marijuana at the Humboldt Patient Resource Center in Arcata, Calif. Officials in Arcata and other cities that have ordinances regulating the industry are now at odds with federal prosecutors, who began shuttering dispensaries in October.
Kevin Jodrey, center, with patients at the Humboldt Patient Resource Center in Arcata, Calif. City officials, wary of a federal crackdown on the medical marijuana industry, have delayed the center’s application.
Humboldt Medical Supply, a dispensary here in Humboldt County regarded as a law-abiding model that has given free cannabis to elderly patients, became the first to obtain a permit in 2010. The Sai Center, whose owner has a history of flouting city regulations and was described by the mayor as running his business “purely for profit,” was rejected last year.
Humboldt Medical quickly closed shop after federal prosecutors began shuttering hundreds of dispensaries in October in one of the biggest crackdowns on medical marijuana since its legalization in California in 1996. The Sai Center’s owner moved locations and has defied the authorities by continuing to operate, most recently out of his mother’s house. City officials, afraid of becoming targets themselves of the prosecutors, have suspended the applications of two other dispensaries that were expected to be approved.
“We feel the federal government’s actions have had a very negative effect,” said Mayor Michael Winkler. “We’re very upset with their actions.”
Like their counterparts in many other municipalities that have regulated medical marijuana on their own, Arcata officials say the federal offensive has brought renewed chaos to the medical marijuana industry. The federal authorities, their critics say, have indiscriminately targeted good and bad dispensaries, sometimes putting the best ones out of business. The crackdown, the critics say, has made it difficult for qualified Californians to obtain marijuana for medical use and is just pushing buyers into the black market.
Acting on federal law, which considers all possession and distribution of marijuana to be illegal, California’s four United States attorneys, working with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, have shut down at least 500 dispensaries statewide in the last eight months by sending letters to operators, landlords and local officials, warning of criminal charges and the seizure of assets. The United States attorneys said the dispensaries were violating not only federal law but also state law, which requires operators to be primary caregivers to their customers and distribute marijuana only for medical purposes.
“We’re not concerned in prosecuting patients or people who are legitimate caregivers for ill people, who are in good faith complying with state law,” said Benjamin B. Wagner, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of California. “But we are concerned about large commercial operations that are generating huge amounts of money by selling marijuana in this essentially unregulated free-for-all that exists in California.”
Because of the lack of regulation, it is difficult to know precisely how many dispensaries have shut down or even how many were in operation before the start of the current crackdown. But figures provided by three of California’s four United States attorneys totaled more than 500: “dozens” in Mr. Wagner’s district; 217 in the Southern District, in San Diego; and more than 200 in the Central District, in Los Angeles. Officials in the three districts say they have succeeded in putting out of business more than 90 percent of the dispensaries they have identified so far.
J.H. was Chair of the Faculty of Psychotherapy at the Royal College of Psychiatrists 1998–2002.
Psychodynamic psychiatry makes a significant educational, scientific and therapeutic contribution to contemporary psychiatry. Recent developments in gene–environment interaction, neuropsychoanalysis and the accumulating evidence base for psychoanalytic therapies and their implications for practice are reviewed.
Royal College of Psychiatrists
From the Editor's desk:
From the Editor's desk BJP June 2012 200:518; doi:10.1192/bjp.200.6.518
John Bucknill, founding editor of this Journal, always argued that psychiatric illness was a brain disease1 and the study of the brain was the answer to professional advancement for psychiatrists. Today I think he would have become a neurologist – and of course he was one of the founders of the journal Brain. I have to be frank and say that I would not have contemplated becoming a psychiatrist if it had been a branch of neurology at the time. When I was a medical student my experiences with neurology were similar to the feelings I get when I see the sport of synchronised swimming. I admire their skills, coordination and professionalism but am left absolutely cold by what they do. Similarly the brilliance and diagnostic acumen of the good neurologist provoked similar regard but when the outcome of consultations rarely involved anything that I could remotely call therapy I switched off. So I opted for the rough and tumble of core psychiatric practice even though it required very different skills. I suspect the practice of therapeutics within neurology has improved since my medical student times but from our recent work it still appears that one in four patients attending neurology clinics has a treatable mental illness that is unrecognised and often mismanaged,2 although many of these patients have complex functional somatic problems (Morriss, pp. 444–445) that we are only just beginning to understand and manage successfully (Schröder et al, pp. 499–507).
But of course, however interested we are in the practice of psychiatry we cannot ignore brain function in our work, and increasingly we are linking clinical features to neurophysiology and neuropathology. Four papers in the issue do exactly this. Jeremy Holmes (pp. 439–441) joins up the unlikely bedfellows of neuropsychology and psychoanalysis and gives a hint that we may soon be able to identify the bourne of the unconscious mind in the depths of the brain. Duijff et al (pp. 462–468) take a genetic disorder, velocardiofacial syndrome, that is commonly associated with schizophrenia, and show that many, but not all, children with this condition show cognitive decline between 5 and 10 years of age. Most clinicians are aware that dementia with Lewy bodies is frequently associated with visual hallucinations, and the studies of Taylor et al (pp. 491–498)3 are beginning to unravel the role of the higher regions of the occipito-parietal cortex in this pathology. Finally, Eccles et al (pp. 508–509) in their challenging paper suggest that amygdala abnormalities may account for the double pathology of hypermobility and the stress/anxiety diathesis in such patients, but of course interpretation is limited as the participants were only volunteers. These studies, and similar ones we have published recently4,5 add to knowledge in an incremental way but only rarely6 do they have a message that is of direct relevance to the practising clinician, and at this stage they seem unlikely to have a quick impact on the bulge of mental disorders in the 20–40 age group, where they dominate all other pathologies.7
So neurology and psychiatry have some way to go before they join in harmony. And when it comes to synchronised swimming, now an Olympic event, I am ashamed that I get more satisfaction, some would call it Schadenfreude but I think it is closer to immature glee, when the performers get it wrong and arms and legs flap akimbo. I hope I can shake off this undesirable weakness when I now work with neurologists and other physicians, as there is a clear need from the paper from Bruffaerts and colleagues (pp. 454–461) for all of us to be more cooperative in dealing with comorbid mental and physical illness if we are to improve life quality.
As we move closer towards the brain I detect a loss of confidence in the profession about its role. I have recently been at an East European and Serbian Congress in Belgrade where there was an open debate about the future of psychiatry and its practitioners. We live in turbulent economic times and may have a right to be gloomy, but I was quite disturbed to hear speaker after speaker predicting the demise of our profession or its absorption into neurology or some other discipline, as the funding for mental illness and respect for psychiatrists gets progressively less. Retrenchment seems to be the current message, together with a return to old disciplines echoed in our columns.8,9 What disturbed me even more was the claim that stigma and discrimination against people with mental illness is getting worse and that our lack of direction is contributing to this. I certainly do not detect this in the UK and with so many initiatives working to promote optimism and reduce stigma10 I honestly do think we have reasons to be cheerful, if not now, at least in the longer term.