‘Everybody Knows that the Prisoner is Going Nowhere’: Parole Board Members’ Views about Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder in England and Wales

Abstract

Abstract:The Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) Programme has been a controversial initiative in England and Wales. First introduced in 1999, DSPD became a highly contested operational as opposed to diagnostic term, used to define a population convicted of violent offences who were admitted for treatment within one of four high security units established for men. The aim of this paper is to explore the outcomes of Parole Board (PB) reviews with DSPD prisoners and investigate PB members' views about DSPD. Nearly all PB members observed that the high security location of the DSPD units was more influential to their decision-making than the label of DSPD. PB members highlighted their expectation that DSPD prisoners make a journey through different levels of security before release is an appropriate consideration. A key finding was that admission to DSPD services could be seen to have disrupted a prisoner's progression and challenged PB members' conceptions of the appropriate (and likely) future progression pathways available to prisoners. These findings have implications not only for the development of the new offender personality disorder pathway in England and Wales but also for other jurisdictions seeking to respond to the longstanding question of how to respond to high risk offenders with personality disorder.

A more promising architecture? Commissioners’ perspectives on the reconfiguration of personality disorder services under the Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) pathway

“…Research suggests that the DSPD “label” has deterred some medium secure services from taking patients from high security (Perkins et al , 2015). Some Parole Board members also expressed their concerns about the effectiveness of DSPD treatment and indicated that they were unlikely to recommend transfer of a DSPD prisoner to conditions of lower security or release (Trebilcock and Weaver, 2012). Some of the commissioners anticipated similar problems for the OPD pathway and mindful of the need to avoid this hindering progression, one commissioner reminded us that:We have to work very closely with the Parole Board so they understand the purpose of the programme.(P02)…”

“…From the outset, concerns were raised about its legal, ethical and clinical legitimacy (Mullen, 1999). Critics highlighted its considerable expense, lengthy assessment procedures, lack of evidence for effectiveness, and failure to provide step down facilities and clear avenues for progression (Barrett and Tyrer, 2012;Burns et al, 2011;Perkins et al, , Romero and Ebrahimjee, 2015;Trebilcock and Weaver, 2012;Tyrer et al, 2010;Tyrer et al, 2015;Völlm and Konappa, 2012).…”