Dialectical Behaviour Therapy: A social work intervention?

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) has emerged as a pivotal intervention in addressing the complex challenges associated with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), particularly within the field of social work. As a modified form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), DBT integrates cognitive and behavioural strategies with mindfulness and dialectical philosophy, making it uniquely suited to the emotional dysregulation and interpersonal instability characteristic of BPD. The therapeutic approach was developed by Marsha Linehan, initially as a treatment for individuals experiencing chronic suicidality and self-harming behaviours. Over time, DBT has evolved into a comprehensive psychosocial treatment, combining individual therapy, skills training groups, phone coaching, and team consultation to support both clients and therapists.

Social work practice is deeply rooted in values of client-centred care, empowerment, and the therapeutic alliance. DBT aligns well with these principles by emphasizing validation, collaboration, and skill-building. The therapy does not pathologize emotional suffering but instead recognizes the dialectical tension between acceptance and change. Clients are encouraged to accept their current realities while simultaneously working towards behavioural and emotional improvements. This dual emphasis supports social work’s commitment to both respecting clients’ lived experiences and fostering meaningful transformation.

Central to DBT is the biosocial theory of BPD, which posits that the disorder arises from a transactional relationship between an emotionally vulnerable individual and an invalidating environment. Emotional vulnerability includes heightened sensitivity to emotional stimuli, intense emotional responses, and a slow return to baseline. An invalidating environment dismisses or punishes emotional expression, leading individuals to doubt their internal experiences and seek external validation through extreme behaviours. This conceptual framework resonates with social work’s ecological perspective, which views human problems within the context of systemic and environmental influences. It also invites practitioners to address broader social and relational dynamics rather than focusing solely on intrapsychic pathology.

The structure of DBT involves several interlocking components. Individual therapy sessions are designed to help clients apply DBT skills to specific challenges and to work through motivational issues that may hinder progress. Skills training groups, which often function more like psychoeducational classes than traditional group therapy, teach core skill sets in four modules: mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, and interpersonal effectiveness. Phone coaching offers in-the-moment support, helping clients generalize skills to real-life situations, while therapist consultation teams ensure practitioners receive ongoing support and supervision. This multifaceted structure enhances treatment fidelity and helps social workers manage the emotional toll of working with high-risk populations.

Mindfulness, the foundational skill in DBT, draws heavily from Zen Buddhist practices and emphasizes nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment. In the context of social work, mindfulness supports both clients and practitioners in cultivating emotional awareness, self-regulation, and a grounded therapeutic presence. Distress tolerance skills help clients survive emotional crises without resorting to self-destructive behaviours. These include distraction techniques, self-soothing strategies, and radical acceptance. Emotion regulation skills aim to reduce emotional vulnerability by increasing positive emotional experiences and decreasing emotional reactivity. Finally, interpersonal effectiveness skills teach assertiveness, boundary-setting, and strategies for maintaining self-respect in relationships.

For social workers, the integration of DBT into practice offers several advantages. The structured nature of the therapy provides a clear roadmap for treatment, while the emphasis on validation and nonjudgmental stance aligns with social work values of empathy and respect. Moreover, DBT’s evidence base is robust. Research demonstrates its effectiveness in reducing self-harm, suicidality, psychiatric hospitalizations, and treatment dropout rates. DBT has also been adapted for various populations beyond BPD, including adolescents, individuals with substance use disorders, and clients with eating disorders or post-traumatic stress.

However, implementing DBT within social work settings also presents challenges. The comprehensive nature of the therapy requires significant training, time commitment, and organizational resources. Many community-based agencies may lack the infrastructure to support all components of the DBT model, such as skills groups or consultation teams. Additionally, the emphasis on behavioural analysis and structured interventions may be unfamiliar to social workers trained primarily in psychodynamic or client-centred approaches. Bridging this gap requires ongoing professional development and interprofessional collaboration.

Despite these barriers, adaptations of DBT have made it more accessible to social work contexts. For instance, some programs offer abbreviated or skills-only versions of DBT, which retain core elements while reducing intensity. These adaptations can still be effective, particularly when delivered with fidelity to the therapy’s principles. Social workers can also incorporate DBT-informed strategies into their broader practice, such as using validation techniques, teaching emotion regulation skills, or encouraging mindfulness.

Furthermore, the relational aspects of DBT—especially the therapeutic alliance—are critical to its success and align closely with social work practice. Therapists are encouraged to balance acceptance and change strategies in their interactions with clients. This dialectical stance involves being warm, validating, and supportive while also setting limits, challenging behaviours, and fostering accountability. Such a balance is particularly important when working with clients who experience intense fear of abandonment, emotional lability, and chronic interpersonal difficulties.

The DBT approach also invites social workers to reflect on their own emotional responses and boundaries. Working with clients who self-harm or express suicidal ideation can evoke fear, frustration, and helplessness. DBT addresses this through consultation teams that provide peer support, case discussion, and skill development. This component fosters sustainability and reduces burnout among practitioners, reinforcing the importance of self-care and supervision in social work practice.

In conclusion, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy represents a powerful intervention for clients with Borderline Personality Disorder, particularly within the field of social work. Its structured, skill-based approach, combined with a compassionate and validating therapeutic stance, makes it both effective and congruent with social work values. While challenges in implementation remain, adaptations and DBT-informed practices allow social workers to integrate its principles in diverse settings. By doing so, they can enhance their capacity to support emotionally vulnerable clients, promote resilience, and foster meaningful change in the lives of those they serve.

Source

DBT tools

Addressing Self-Harm: Assessment, Management, and Prevention

Introduction
Self-harm, defined as intentional self-poisoning or injury irrespective of intent, remains a significant public health issue affecting individuals across all age groups and demographics. The behavior is often associated with underlying mental health conditions, emotional distress, or adverse social circumstances. To address this, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) released guideline NG225, offering evidence-based recommendations for assessing, managing, and preventing recurrence of self-harm. This article delves deeply into the key aspects of the guideline, designed for healthcare professionals, educators, social care practitioners, and others involved in supporting those who self-harm.

Understanding Self-Harm
Self-harm includes a wide range of behaviors, such as cutting, poisoning, or other acts of self-injury, that are intentional but may not always be intended to end life. Unlike stereotypical self-injurious behaviors seen in some developmental disorders, self-harm in this context often arises from emotional dysregulation, mental health disorders, or environmental stressors. It requires a holistic understanding that respects individual circumstances and avoids stigmatization.

Core Principles of Care
Providing care for individuals who self-harm must be grounded in respect, dignity, and empathy. Practitioners are encouraged to address the stigma surrounding self-harm and to adopt a collaborative approach with patients and, when appropriate, their families or carers. This collaboration should focus on shared decision-making, enabling individuals to have control over their care plans and fostering a sense of empowerment. Special attention should be given to inclusivity, ensuring care strategies are adapted to meet the needs of underserved or marginalized populations, such as those with disabilities, neurodevelopmental disorders, or from minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ backgrounds.

Assessment and Psychosocial Care
Timely and thorough psychosocial assessments are crucial in understanding the context of self-harm and addressing underlying issues. Mental health professionals should prioritize building a therapeutic relationship with the individual, exploring the functions and reasons for their self-harming behavior. Assessments should be conducted in private settings that promote confidentiality and are sensitive to the individual’s preferences and needs.
Key considerations include:

Assessing the individual’s emotional and mental state, social circumstances, and immediate safety.
Understanding the specific triggers and personal values associated with the behavior.
Tailoring assessments for specific populations, such as children, older adults, and individuals with learning disabilities, ensuring age-appropriate and context-sensitive approaches.
For children and young people, professionals should explore social, educational, and home environments while addressing potential safeguarding concerns. In older adults, factors such as loneliness, cognitive impairments, and physical health issues should be prioritized.

Prevention Strategies and Interventions
Preventing self-harm recurrence requires a multi-faceted approach that combines psychological support, safety planning, harm minimization, and coordinated care across services. Psychological interventions, particularly those informed by cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are the cornerstone of treatment for individuals who self-harm. For children and adolescents experiencing emotional dysregulation and frequent self-harming episodes, dialectical behavior therapy adapted for adolescents (DBT-A) is recommended.
Collaboratively developed safety plans are integral to prevention. These plans should help individuals identify triggers, develop coping mechanisms, and access support during crises. Safety measures may include removing access to means of self-harm and providing practical tools for managing distress. Harm minimization strategies, such as education on wound care and safe practices, can also play a role when individuals are not yet ready to completely stop self-harming.
Safer prescribing is critical in minimizing risks for individuals at high risk of overdose. This involves reviewing medications, limiting quantities, and maintaining open communication with other healthcare providers. Pharmacological interventions, however, are not recommended as primary treatments for self-harm.

Role of Professionals in Various Sectors
Healthcare professionals, educators, and staff in social and criminal justice settings all play vital roles in supporting individuals who self-harm.
Healthcare settings must adopt integrated care models that bring together mental and physical health services. Emergency departments should ensure access to private spaces for assessments, maintain clear protocols for managing frequent attenders, and prioritize collaborative decision-making. Schools and educational institutions should have designated leads for mental health who ensure the implementation and regular review of self-harm policies. These policies should provide guidance on identifying self-harming behaviors, supporting affected students, and addressing the needs of their peers.
In criminal justice settings, staff should be equipped to identify and respond to self-harm, ensuring access to appropriate healthcare and safeguarding resources. Secure environments, such as immigration removal centers, must address the heightened risks of self-harm and suicide among their populations while providing staff with adequate support for their own mental well-being.

Training and Supervision
The guideline underscores the importance of regular training for all professionals working with individuals who self-harm. This training should address the psychological and emotional complexities of self-harm, cultural competency, de-escalation techniques, and the development of compassionate communication skills.
Staff in specialist roles, such as mental health professionals, should receive additional training in conducting psychosocial assessments and risk formulation. Regular supervision and emotional support for staff are essential to help them manage the challenges associated with working in this field, ensuring they can provide compassionate and effective care without burnout.

Conclusion
The NICE guideline NG225 provides a comprehensive framework for addressing self-harm through respectful, evidence-based care. By prioritizing timely assessments, tailored interventions, and collaborative prevention strategies, professionals can significantly improve outcomes for individuals who self-harm. This requires coordinated efforts across healthcare, education, and social sectors, supported by ongoing training and robust policies. Ultimately, fostering a culture of understanding and compassion is crucial in reducing the prevalence and impact of self-harm while ensuring that affected individuals receive the support they need to recover.

Source

The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work Practice

Religion and spirituality have long been foundational aspects of human experience, shaping cultures, moral values, and personal identities. In social work practice, however, these elements have often been sidelined, especially in British contexts, in contrast to their central role in the United States. Recent studies highlight the importance of integrating religion and spirituality into social work, given their significance in the lives of many service users. Social work practitioners must be prepared to address the religious and spiritual needs of clients in order to provide culturally competent care.

The Importance of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work

Religion and spirituality play a pivotal role in shaping people’s worldview, coping strategies, and their perception of challenges such as illness, poverty, or discrimination. For some, religious beliefs provide a sense of community, meaning, and hope during difficult times. Social workers must be able to recognize the influence of these beliefs in shaping client behavior and choices. This recognition is critical for providing holistic and culturally sensitive interventions that consider all aspects of a person’s identity.

In the study by Philip Gilligan and Sheila Furness, surveys conducted with social work practitioners and students in Britain revealed a need for increased focus on religious and spiritual elements in education and practice. Although many clients value these beliefs, social workers often feel unprepared to engage with them in their professional practice. The findings suggested that Muslim practitioners were more likely to view religious interventions as appropriate, but overall, the profession requires better training to adequately meet the spiritual needs of clients.

Current Practice and Educational Gaps

British social work, compared to the U.S., has historically paid less attention to the religious and spiritual dimensions of practice. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) code of ethics, while emphasising respect for service users’ values, does not specifically address religious or spiritual needs, whereas the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in the U.S. explicitly includes these in their ethical guidelines.

In educational settings, British social work students often report that religion and spirituality are rarely explored in their training. According to Gilligan and Furness, less than 50% of students felt that religious or spiritual interventions were appropriately covered in their curriculum. This is a missed opportunity, as many service users rely on spiritual or religious frameworks to navigate crises and life transitions. In contrast, some U.S. social work programs, like the California State University Bakersfield, have made strides in integrating religion and spirituality into their curricula, offering courses that teach students how to assess and incorporate spiritual practices in their work.

Cultural Competence and Spiritual Sensitivity

The need for culturally competent social work cannot be overstated, especially in diverse societies like Britain, where the 2001 census showed over 75% of households identified with a particular religion. For many minority groups, especially those of South Asian heritage, religion is central to their identity. In such contexts, ignoring the religious and spiritual needs of clients can lead to interventions that feel disconnected or even harmful to those being served.

Culturally competent practice involves not only acknowledging the impact of religion but also integrating it into the assessment and intervention process when appropriate. For example, the 1989 Children Act in Britain mandates that local authorities must consider the religious background of a child when making care decisions. However, Gilligan and Furness’s research shows that many practitioners do not feel adequately trained to handle such requirements, particularly when religion plays a significant role in service users’ lives.

Addressing the Gaps: Recommendations for Social Work Practice

To close the gap between the needs of service users and the preparedness of practitioners, social work education must place greater emphasis on religion and spirituality. Training should not only focus on the theoretical understanding of religious and spiritual beliefs but also equip social workers with practical skills to engage in spiritually sensitive assessments and interventions.

Furthermore, social workers must navigate the delicate balance between supporting service users’ religious or spiritual beliefs and maintaining professional boundaries. The NASW Code of Ethics warns against exploiting religious beliefs for personal gain or allowing them to conflict with professional duties. In practice, this means that social workers need to respect service users’ beliefs while ensuring that interventions are ethical, appropriate, and service user-driven.

Conclusion

The integration of religion and spirituality into social work practice is essential for delivering culturally competent care. As the diversity of service users increases, so too does the need for social workers to understand the profound role that these beliefs can play in shaping individual lives. Gilligan and Furness’s research underscores the importance of education and training in this area, advocating for a more intentional approach to addressing the spiritual dimensions of social work. By doing so, social workers can provide more comprehensive, respectful, and effective care for all people they supporting.

For social work to be truly inclusive and effective, practitioners and educators must prioritise the spiritual and religious dimensions of human experience, recognizing them as integral parts of holistic social care.

Trauma-Informed Social Work Supervision

Trauma informed Social Work Practice

Trauma-informed social work practice is an approach to social work that takes into account the impact of trauma on the lives of individuals, families, and communities. This approach recognizes that trauma can have long-term effects on a person’s mental health, physical health, and well-being, and that individuals who have experienced trauma require specialized care and support.

The goal of trauma-informed social work practice is to create a safe and supportive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma. This approach emphasizes the importance of building trust and collaboration with clients, as well as empowering clients to make decisions about their own care. Trauma-informed social work practice also recognizes the role that societal and institutional trauma can play in the lives of individuals, and seeks to create change at a systemic level.

One of the key principles of trauma-informed social work practice is understanding the prevalence of trauma. Research has shown that a significant percentage of the population has experienced some form of trauma in their lives. This trauma can range from individual experiences, such as physical or sexual abuse, to collective experiences, such as discrimination or systemic oppression. Understanding the prevalence of trauma is essential in creating an environment that is sensitive to the needs of individuals who have experienced trauma.

Another principle of trauma-informed social work practice is the importance of safety. Trauma can create feelings of fear, anxiety, and vulnerability, which can make it difficult for individuals to engage in social work services. Trauma-informed social work practice emphasizes the importance of creating a safe environment for clients, both physically and emotionally. This may involve providing privacy and confidentiality, ensuring that clients have control over their own care, and creating a space that is calm and welcoming.

Trauma-informed social work practice also emphasizes the importance of empowerment. Clients who have experienced trauma often feel disempowered and may have difficulty trusting others. Trauma-informed social work practice seeks to empower clients by providing them with information, support, and tools to help them make decisions about their own care. This may involve working collaboratively with clients, recognizing their strengths and resources, and supporting them in setting goals that are meaningful to them.

Cultural humility is also a key aspect of trauma-informed social work practice. Social workers must recognize the ways in which cultural differences can impact the experience of trauma, as well as the ways in which cultural beliefs and practices can be a source of strength and resilience. Cultural humility involves recognizing one’s own cultural biases and limitations, and working to create a culturally responsive and inclusive environment for clients.

Finally, trauma-informed social work practice recognizes the importance of collaboration and partnership. Addressing the impact of trauma requires a multidisciplinary approach, and social workers must work collaboratively with other professionals, such as mental health providers, medical professionals, and educators. Trauma-informed social work practice also recognizes the importance of community partnerships, and seeks to create partnerships with community organizations and leaders to create a more supportive and responsive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma.

In conclusion, trauma-informed social work practice is an approach to social work that recognizes the impact of trauma on the lives of individuals, families, and communities. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the prevalence of trauma, creating a safe and empowering environment for clients, practicing cultural humility, and collaborating with other professionals and community partners. By adopting a trauma-informed approach, social workers can provide more effective care and support to individuals who have experienced trauma, and contribute to creating a more just and equitable society.

Congruence in Social Work

Congruence is an important concept in social work that refers to the degree of compatibility between the values, beliefs, and behaviors of the social worker and the person they are helping. It is a fundamental principle of the helping relationship that is essential to building trust and fostering positive outcomes.

In social work, the goal is to promote the well-being and empowerment of the individuals, families, and communities that social workers serve. To achieve this goal, social workers must be able to establish a relationship with the people they are helping that is based on mutual respect and understanding. Congruence is the foundation of this relationship, as it ensures that the social worker and the person they are helping share a common understanding of the issues at hand and are working towards the same goals.

Social workers must be able to understand the perspectives, experiences, and beliefs of the people they are helping, and be able to connect with them on a deep level. This requires a high degree of self-awareness, as well as an understanding of the social, cultural, and historical context of the people they are helping. Social workers must also be able to align their own values and beliefs with the goals and values of the people they are serving, and be able to act in ways that are consistent with these goals and values.

Congruence is important because it promotes trust and rapport between the social worker and the person they are helping. When there is a high degree of congruence, the person being helped is more likely to feel understood and valued, and to feel that their needs and concerns are being taken seriously. This, in turn, leads to greater engagement in the helping process and a greater likelihood of positive outcomes.

In conclusion, congruence is an essential principle in social work that helps to promote positive outcomes for the individuals and communities that social workers serve. Social workers must strive to cultivate congruence in their relationships with the people they are helping, and be mindful of their own values, beliefs, and behaviors to ensure that they are in line with the needs and goals of those they serve.

The Japanese conundrum of retaining Capital Punishment

Globally the use of capital punishment is declining steadily (Johnson, 2019). By 2019, less than one-third of the countries in the world kept death penalty in their legal system, and in practice most of the executions carried out by a few countries: China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and in the United States (US). In the US, several states abolished death penalty in recent years, furthermore the number of executions also decreased significantly (Death Penalty Information Center, 2021). This worldwide trend regarding death penalty continues today. In this international context, Japans’ retentionist attitude towards capital punishment is exceptional and ambivalent.

Historically, Japanese society practiced death penalty until 810, when the nation ended capital punishment and became the first abolitionist nation in world. Almost 350 years later, the execution of Minamoto no Tameyoshi – an unprecedented violation of Buddhist values – resurrected this ancient form of punishment (Johnson, 2006; Schmidt, 2002).

As a developed democracy, Japan retains and carries out death penalty to this day, while other wealthy and democratic nations abolished this form of punishment from their Criminal Justice System (CJS). Compare to the US, Japan’s democracy and state is centralised, the penal system is unified, and its history is not tainted with racial tensions, which would have made abolition of the death penalty achievable, like in other European countries (Hammel, 2010). Another difference is that “the secrecy that surrounds capital punishment in Japan is taken to extremes not seen in other nations” (Johnson, 2006, p.251), as former Minister of Justice Hideo Usui stated: it is “simply not a social issue” (Struck, 2001: A1) while in the US for instance this issue is openly discussed and debated (Bohm, 2003).

Furthermore, if we consider history and political settings we find similarities between Western Europe and Japan. In Europe, after the collapse of authoritarian regimes the capital punishment was abolished, while in Japan it persisted. Likewise, after liberal and left leaning governments got elected, for instance in the United Kingdom and France, the capital punishment ended in those jurisdictions, whereas in Japan it remained almost the same (Ditton, 2004).

In the social context, Japan’s retention of death penalty seems to be a riddle, in comparison to the US and Europe. In terms of homicide rate, in Japan it is around 90% lower than in the United States, also it is lower than in the abolitionist European countries (Leonardsen, 2004). We can argue that the high murder rate in the US can explain capital punishment, while lower homicide rate in Europe explain abolition of such sentence. However, Japan – regardless having one of the lowest crime rate in the world – still retains its capital punishment. Furthermore, in terms of socio-economic inequality Japan presents a more equal and homogenous state and society than the US, where social, economic and racial differences may explain the retention of capital punishment (Ogletree and Sarat, 2006). While, both countries’ death row is filled with socially and economically disadvantaged people, inequality does not explain the retention of such institution.

So, what is the answer to this conundrum? One possible explanation is the role of the state and existing cultural and political institutions and practices (Bessler, 2012; Johnson, 2006). As capital punishment is the monopoly of the state, first we must understand its context, perspective and nature; in order to comprehend the retention or abolishment of such sentence.

After the Second World War, Japan did not abolish its capital punishment, compare to numerous European and Asian countries when their respective authoritarian regimes fell. During the US Occupation, Japan underwent a significant transformation including regime change, property, judiciary, and equality reform; however altering or abolishing death penalty was not part of the agenda. Conversely, the American occupation of West Germany led to the abolishment of the capital punishment in 1949. It is likely, that US officials influenced and retained death penalty in order to punish Japanese “war criminals”, which implies in a post-war situation, when the victor desires retaliation, retribution and vengeance this form of punishment more likely to be preserved (Johnson, 2020).

Furthermore, after the end of US occupation practices around capital punishment became shrouded with silence and secrecy. This effectively stripped offenders’ right to be notified of the date of the execution, see their family, participate in religious practices and sort out their last will (Johnson, 2006). From 1963 onwards, the restrictions continued by limiting staff interactions with death row prisoners, isolating them even further. Talking, playing games and visitation became prohibited and officials were less willing to disclose any information regarding practices of capital punishment (Johnson, 2006).

The secrecy of executions in Japan indicates lack of accountability and transparency, therefore it indirectly undermines Japan’s democratic system, compare to the US, where the death penalty is a highly contentious and transparent institution. This secrecy justified by the isolation of the offender, so they can prepare and accept the inevitable death with privacy, dignity and honour; at the expense of democratic values above. Secondly, silence creates consistency and ‘stability’, but also uncertainty – as they do not know when they will be executed – which deteriorates the mental health of death row prisoners (Kaga, 1980). In terms of prosecutor’s view, we can find conflicting opinions regarding justifications of secrecy and capital punishment. According to Shimizu (2002), some prosecutors believe secrecy is currently the ‘best’ practice they can do, while others would favour abolition of capital punishment. Some, expressed preference towards more transparency and ‘confidence’ in the system, as the Japanese CJS ‘is the best in world’, hence secrecy is unnecessary.

Another possible explanation lies in Japan’s conservative government being in power since 1955, with only a few minor interruption. However, even during those periods nothing changed in practice regarding capital punishment, despite such promises and public denunciation of executions. In Europe and in US, abolition occurred under liberal-left leaning governments, with the exception of conservative Nebraska in 2015, however it was reinstated in the following election (Death Penalty Information Center, 2021). Therefore, the dominating and enduring conservative politics in Japan contributed to the preservation of death penalty (Johnson, 2020).

Geopolitics also a driving force of Japan’s retention of capital punishment, especially since it become a global economic power (Johnson, 2020). Similar to the US, Japan’s political and economic power and influence limits organisations, like the United Nations (UN) to impose international law, human rights or significant sanctions on to the country. Powerful nations rarely allow external influence; they support agendas that serve their own interest and ignore others. For instance, US torturing prisoners in the name of “war on terror”, China’s oppression of free speech, whaling in Japan and the retention of death penalty by all of these jurisdictions. Therefore, it is not a surprise that the worldwide trend and dynamic of abolition has not been able to influence Japan’s capital punishment policy and practice. Furthermore, the Japanese government embrace “self-sufficiency” as a virtue, which disregards and prevents any external influence. Conversely, as Japan shadows US foreign policy its abolition of death penalty also depends and reflects on America’s attitude towards such punishment. As long as the world leading democracy executes its own citizens, the US legitimise other countries’ capital punishment. If the US would completely abolish death penalty in every State, Japan high likely to follow and also end capital punishment. However, there is a small possibility that Japan would not conform and act similarly to whaling, where Japan rejected the international consensus and resumed commercial whaling (Ogletree and Sarat, 2009). As of today, the status quo has not changed amongst the world leading powers regarding capital punishment, therefore until the US stops executing criminals, Japan will not receive much foreign or domestic pressure to reconsider abolition.

Domestically, capital punishment is approved, validated and supported by the general public, the Government and the constitution altogether. This notion has been reaffirmed by several polls, stating deterrence and retribution is the main reason for support (Schmidt, 2002), which is often used by the Government justifying the retention of capital punishment (Hood and Hoyle, 2015; Johnson and Zimring, 2009; Lane, 2005, Schmidt, 2002). This populist and retributive sentiment above has been echoed by politicians, government officials, lawyers and judges over the years (Lane, 2005; Foote, 1992).

In contemporary Japan, rehabilitation is the conventional and most supported approach to discipline and reform offenders (Braithwaite, 1989), however regardless this consensus on alternative form of punishment to death penalty, the inhumane nature and possible wrongful conviction are the two main reason people oppose executions in Japan (Schmidt, 2002). In the 80’s several death row convicts were acquitted, which caused significant doubt and concern regarding capital punishment (Lane, 2005; Schmidt,, 2002), still today the majority of citizens support such sentence (Hamai and Ellis, 2008; Lane, 2005; The Death Penalty Project, 2013), while only 6% would abolish capital punishment (Japan Times, 2005).

From the 90’s, as a consequence of police scandals, media attention and changes in crime reporting, it has been significant increase of reported violent offences. Conversely, a 2004 victim survey found falling victimisation rates (Hamai and Ellis, 2006; 2008). Regardless these conflicting data, the perception of rising crime-rate amongst the public has been increased unquestionably (Hamai and Ellis, 2006; Lane, 2005). As a result, stakeholders of the CJS have become more punitive, which increased the prison population and public support for capital punishment (Hamai and Ellis, 2008; The Death Penalty Project, 2013).

Furthermore, several studies have found that men are more supportive of capital punishment, while other papers argued the opposite. Similarly, research showed no significant influence of age or religion towards death penalty. A single paper showed increased support by age amongst lawyers (Schmidt, 2002); Lane (2005) suggested Buddhism embrace ‘justified retribution’ through death penalty, while Johnson and Zimrig (2009) argued Buddhist principles are not compatible with such punishment. As in contemporary Japan, religion plays a minor role in everyday life, therefore it does not influence how people view capital punishment, not weigh in such argument (Schmidt, 2002). Conversely, according to Jiang et al. (2010) more than 80% of participants perceived Japan ‘has a great deal of crime’, they also found that deterrence is the ‘strongest predictor’ regarding their views on capital punishment, while in the US retribution is the main indicator. This can be explained by Japan being a collectivist society, where trusting the government is the norm (Foote, 1992; Jiang and Wang, 2008), therefore its view on deterrence and capital punishment high likely to influence public opinion (Hood and Hoyle, 2008; Jiang et al., 2010).

Government officials argue that the secrecy and silence around capital punishment is ‘tradition’, therefore change is not needed. However, this ‘traditional’ secrecy is not older than half a century. ‘Self-censorship’ may also behind this veil around executions, to present a positive image to the world; however in the light of international non-government organisations’ criticisms and campaigns towards Japan, this explanation is unconvincing (The Death Penalty Project, 2013).

From the point of view of the Government, capital punishment and the secrecy around it is retained in order to maintain order and stability and deter future offenders. Through this form of punishment, anxiety and fear may increase state power; directly by influencing the public’s attitude towards the government; and indirectly by affirming that capital punishment is the monopoly of the state and by making the state less vulnerable to criticism. Also, it may discourage citizens to hold the government accountable, which is problematic in a liberal democratic country (Flybjerg, 1998; Johnson, 2006). The State sees death penalty in Japan as a symbolic institution that validates public opinion – justified by low execution rate and its deterrent effect, therefore abolishing it would not be democratic. However, this argument is problematic as the concealment of capital punishment from the public’s eye contradicts and undermines the country democratic values, such as accountability and transparency.

Overall, most of Japanese citizens does not have formed opinion regarding capital punishment – however as most of them trust the Government, therefore they likely to align themselves with the state, and even those in favour of capital punishment are high likely to change their views when they learn more about the issue. That is why, secrecy and silence around executions is problematic as it contributes its retention and limits transparency and accountability around the subject. Therefore, as public opinion is not as one-sided as the polls shows regarding retention and justification of death penalty, the Government should consider revaluating the evidence.

However this change is very unlikely, regardless the fact that Japanese people prefer rehabilitation as punishment for offenders. The secrecy and silence that surrounds capital punishment in Japan prevents debate and discourse, the Government’s interest to retain the Status Quo keeps this shroud intact, and the domestic and geopolitical circumstances are restraining the State ability and will to change. Therefore, until the external conditions remain the same – for instance the US retains death penalty, the Japanese government will keep executions obfuscated and the public will not debate the retention or abolition of capital punishment, which result of continuation of executions, more secrecy and through this slow degradation of Japanese democracy.

The people who volunteer to go to prison

Can human rights make our societies better? This podcast explores the most important human rights issues of the day through engaging and accessible interviews with high-profile guests and straightforward guides to key concepts and key events. Presented by leading human rights lawyer Adam Wagner.

Effective Prison Oversight and Independence in Scotland

By Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Scotland and Stephen Sandham, Her Majesty’s Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons, Scotland.

It goes without saying that prison inspection and monitoring bodies should provide important safeguards against breaches of human rights. How far do they really do so in practice? And how do we measure up in Scotland to the test of demonstrating our independence from the Scottish government and making a difference to policy and practice?I will attempt to answer these questions by briefly describing the challenges we face in Scotland, the resources we can marshal to address them, and the political context in which we manoeuvre.

It is starkly clear to anyone working in the justice system in Scotland today that the challenges presently facing the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are enormous. The Scottish prison system is designed to deal with approximately 7,700 prisoners, but for the last 12-18 months it has regularly had more than8,200 prisoners. Despite the introduction of new legislation to discourage short-term sentences, the evidence so far suggests that these numbers will not decline for at least the next year. This has often left the SPS with 500-700 additional prisoners – the equivalent of a medium sized prison -having to be squeezed into the existing estate. This still contains a number of Victorian prisons that I have officially described as no longer fit for purpose in a modern prison system. The result has been a sustained period of overcrowding, particularly in one antiquated Victorian prison, with the inevitable consequences for prisoners. Single cells have had to be converted into double cells that sometimes breach international standards on space per prisoner. Deeply regrettable restrictions in regime and purposeful activity have had to be imposed, and prisoners have experienced frustrating delays in accessing the rehabilitation programmes that might assist them to secure progression to more open conditions, or support an application to the Parole Board.

These same pressures of overcrowding have contributed to a worryingly high level of staff sickness amongst Scottish prison staff, which in turnhas imposed more pressure on the remaining workforce. And the morale of prison staff has not been helped by media scrutiny which is nearly always negative, and not always for justifiable reasons. On the issue of staffing, I would count two further setbacks:the retirement of the currentvisionary Chief Executive, and collective disappointment at the failure to secure staff backing for a plan to professionalise the SPS workforce.

As I write this article, we are just at the start of whatever additional challenges will arise from the coronavirus. We have already seen in Italy the potential consequences of lock downs and restrictions on prison visits. It is obvious what the loss of another 20% or more of prison staff on sick leave could entail: further restrictions on hours out of cellsand other activities, and, even worse, the inability of health service staff to cope should the virus spread widely throughout our prisons.

In such situations effective monitoring of the conditions and treatment of prisoners becomes even more important. Are we up to the task here in HMIPS? I would normally have had no hesitation in saying yes, but these are not normal times, and I am acutely aware that our own capacity to monitor effectively will be impacted severely by the coronavirus.

Here’s how Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS) works. As Chief InspectorI am blessed here with a small but hugely dedicated team of 12 professional staff, and 120 wonderful volunteers who make up our team of Independent Prison Monitors (IPMs). Our IPMs provide a continuous programme of weekly visits by committed enthusiastic volunteers who care passionately about the treatment of prisoners. They hold prison governors to account through a series of quarterly meetings where the governor in charge meetsthe independent prison monitors, provides a report on what has been happening in the prison, and discusses the latest monitoring findings. Moreover, IPM monitoring reports help inform where we target our inspections, when we carry out a more in-depth assessment of conditions every 3 years or so, and what to focus on during each inspection. The IPMs are not merely advisory: they have a vital role in monitoring the action the prison management commits to making in response to our inspection findings. The two parts of the oversight system inform each other and, working together, provide tighter more effective monitoring of conditions than either part could achieve on its own.

Three other elements seem to mefundamental to the effectiveness of our oversight of Scotland’s prisons. Firstly, all our inspection and monitoring standards are grounded in human rights thinking. As a member of the UK National Preventive Mechanism, we are committed to doing all within our power to ensure compliance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), the Mandela rules, and other international standards on the treatment of prisoners. Secondly, we are able to bring in specialist knowledge and expertise from other scrutiny bodies when we go in to inspect. Thirdly, we have sufficient independence from Government and from the Scottish Prison Service to challenge policy and practicewhen we have a duty to do so, while still enjoying a constructive relationship that promotes shared understanding and recognition of the challenges facing the prison service.

Our inspection and monitoring standards were comprehensively revised three years ago with considerable input from the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC). They are independently appointed by the Scottish Parliament to promote respect for human rights everywhere in Scotland and encourage best practice in relation to their protection. The new standards have a very particular focus on the PANEL principles of Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination andequality, Empowerment and Legality. That has really challenged our whole inspection and monitoring team to look at prisons through a human rights lens and forced us to think again about the way we pose questions to prisoners and prison staff.

We also take people from the SHRC in with us when we carry out our inspections. Their contribution has proved invaluable, particularly in challenging the SPS and indeed ourselves to think harder about the type of support provided for foreign nationals and other minority groups, and the adequacy of accommodation and other support available for disabled prisoners. We frequently conclude that not enough is being done for all these groups.

We benefit hugely too from the expertise of our other partner scrutiny agencies such as Health Improvement Scotland, Education Scotland, and the Care Inspectorate. Their combined expertise enhances our ability to assess the health, education, and progression services provided for prisoners in a way we simply couldn’t do on our own.

By far the most important aspect of our work is maintaining a delicate balance: to provide robust independent external scrutiny, but to do so in a way that maximises the prospects for influencing real change. Often it is relatively straightforward to identify and call out what is wrong and needs to be improved, but we are all aware of the number of inspection reports and thematic review reports across the world which have been published, sometimes to great applause, only to gather dust on the shelf thereafter.

In order to get anything done in the real world, our messages have to be conveyed with compassion and understanding of the pressures facing others. We need to avoid antagonising the politicians and civil servants from whom we seek change, orfatally undermining the morale of those striving hard at the sharp end of these extraordinary challenges.

For HMIPS, maintaining independence from Government is not easy –our funding comes from the Scottish Government, and we are technically Scottish Government employees. Without funding from the Scottish Government, we would not exist as an organisation and there would be little or no scrutiny of Scottish prisons at all. At the same time, HMIPS partly relies on the willingness of SPS to offer people on secondment to us. Without a few secondees from SPS, to work alongside our core HMIPS team, we would struggleto keep up to date with SPS policies, guidance, and processes. Moreover, in our experience secondees from the SPS very quickly turn from ‘poacher to gamekeeper’ and frequently know better than anyone else where the bodies are hidden or when inspectors aren’t being given the full story. For our part, we are encouraged that the SPS recognises the value that a secondment to HMIPS can have for individuals with potential and aspirations to go higher. We hope it will be seen as an integral part of career development programmes for governor grades.

Does all this mean our ability to criticise Government or the SPS is fatally compromised? Definitely not, but we do think carefully when drafting our reports how they will be received. We try to balance the identification of issues that need to be addressed with praise for good practice, and for the often outstanding efforts of staff at all levels of the SPS in extremely difficult circumstances. We always provide an opportunity for the SPS and the NHS to comment on our draft reports, so any factual inaccuracies can be corrected before publication, and we will adjust our assessment scores and accompanying narrative where persuaded by additional evidence. Moreover, while some might see the symbiotic nature of our relationship with the Scottish Government as a weakness, in my experience it does allow ready access to key decision makers within the Scottish Government and to Scottish Ministers themselves. It is also unquestionably the case that our recent reports and evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s different committees, along with inspection reports still in draft, have been a major influence in decisions by the Scottish Government to increase funding for the SPS and further energised action by the SPS to modernise the prison estate. Finally, we fully recognise that we have some way to go to achieve the lofty ambition set out in our strategic plan: to be recognised globally as at the leading edge of good practice in the scrutiny of prisons. Nevertheless, I am sure you willagree with me that it is always good to aim high!

Source