FASD, Indefinite Detention and Colonial Dispossession

Harry Blagg
Professor of Criminology, University of Western Australia

Tamara Tulich
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia

Zoe Bush,
Tutor and Former Research Assistant, Law School, University of Western Australia

The over-incarceration of Indigenous persons has been described by a Committee of the Australian House of Representatives as “a shameful state of affairs”.[1] Despite only accounting for approximately 2% of the population, Australia’s Indigenous peoples account for 27% of the national prison population, while Indigenous youth account for 54% of juvenile detainees. [2] In Western Australia, the picture is even bleaker: as of 31 March this year, Indigenous peoples accounted for 73% of the State’s juvenile detainees.[3]

Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, commonly known as FASD, is an umbrella term encompassing a spectrum of disorders caused by prenatal alcohol exposure. The impairments associated with FASD can give rise to a number of difficulties, including difficulties with memory, linking actions to consequences, and impulse control. These difficulties can render persons with FASD more susceptible to contact with the criminal justice system – as victims and offenders – and pose challenges at each stage of the criminal justice process.  In Western Australia, the greatest danger is that the impairments associated with FASD may lead to a young person being indefinitely detained if found unfit to stand trial for a criminal offence that carries a term of imprisonment.

How rape myths are used and challenged in rape and sexual assault trials

Olivia Smith
Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Anglia Ruskin University

Tina Skinner
Associate Professor in Sociology, University of Bath

In 1997, Sue Lees published findings of rape trial observation research that showed rape survivors being treated with open cynicism based on myths about how rape happens, who it happens to, and how people behave afterwards. These findings reflected the wider research into ‘rape myths’ that had been conducted since the mid-70s by academics such as Brownmiller, Estrich, and Burt, and acted as a catalyst for policy reform. Indeed, the UK Government has made many attempts to remove rape myths from English and Welsh trials since Lees (1997) first published her work. These have included training for judges and prosecution barristers, ‘myth-buster’ judicial directions to warn juries about the risk of making assumptions, and outlining a set of circumstances in which consent should be assumed absent unless the accused can show otherwise. Despite the positive steps taken, rape myths remain dominant in the attitudes of the public and legal professionals and have been used to explain the ongoing poor treatment of survivors (Stern, 2010; Temkin & Krahe, 2008).