Official Discourse

This paper analyses two Official Reports on law and order. They confront legitimation deficits, seeking discursively to redeem them by denial of their material geneses. This denial establishes an absence in the discourse. This absence, the Other, is the silence of a world constituted by material relations whose reality cannot be appropriated by a mode of normative argument which speaks to and from its own self-image via an idealised conception of justice. The paper discusses first the Reports' discursive problems, secondly, the disparate jurisprudential knowledges realised by the texts, and lastly the discursive presentation of these knowledges.     

The legal ethics of pediatric research

Since the mid- to late 1990s, the scientific and medical research community has sought to increase its access to healthy children for research protocols that involve harm or a risk of harm. This move reverses longstanding policy within that community generally to exclude healthy children from such protocols on the grounds that the research as to them is non-therapeutic, that they are particularly vulnerable to research-related abuses, and that they are unable themselves to give informed consent to their participation. The research community's new posture has been supported by prominent pediatric bioethicists who have argued that unless healthy children are included as research subjects in harmful or risky research, the pediatric population will continue to suffer relative to the adult population in the extent to which it benefits from modern advances in science and medicine. In their view, it is possible for the research community to self-administer a rule that strikes a balance between protecting healthy children from research-related abuses and allowing their inclusion in cutting-edge pediatric research. In this scheme, parental consent is central to the research community's claims about child protection. This Article explores the flaws inherent in this ethics of pediatric research. Specifically, it challenges the view from ethics that the law permits parents to consent to their children's inclusion in harmful or risky research to the extent that related invasions would meet legal maltreatment standards. More broadly, it challenges the movement to increase access to healthy children for harmful and risky research on the ground that it risks two important regressions: First, in its willingness to risk harm to individual children in the interests of the group, it threatens the progress the law has made in its development of the concept of the child as an individual worthy of respect in his or her own right, a concept that imagines parents as fiduciaries and that includes strong protections against invasions of bodily integrity. Second, in its failure to assure that the burdens of non-therapeutic research are not placed disproportionately on children of lower socioeconomic and minority status, it violates the antidiscrimination principle, which has only begun to make good on its promise of equal treatment for all children. Ultimately, this Article argues that harmonization of the rules governing pediatric research with the law of child protection and parents' consent authority is the best way to assure that children are protected in the research setting in these respects and to the same extent they are otherwise in the society.     

What Makes Recovered-Memory Testimony Compelling to Jurors?

Little is known about how jurors arrive at verdicts in cases involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Study 1 investigated mock jurors' reactions to the recovered-memory testimony of an alleged victim when a therapist intervened with hypnosis, suggestion, or symptom management. When a therapist used hypnosis, jurors viewed the victim's recovered-memory testimony as particularly accurate and credible, and favored the victim in their verdicts. In Study 2, mock jurors were presented with a therapist who was sued for allegedly influencing a client's recall of false memories of abuse. In this case, however, jurors viewed therapists who used hypnosis or suggestion as more likely to have created false memories, more responsible for having caused harm, and less competent, and tended not to favor these therapists in their verdicts. We discuss these seemingly contradictory findings in terms of how culturally formed expectancies about hypnosis produce different causal explanations depending on the focus of a trial.     

Images from a Neoliberal City: The State, Surveillance and Social Control

Smith (1996: 230–232) characterized the latetwentieth century crusade for a new urbanfrontier as akin to the Wild West ofnineteenth century America. In the last tenyears, not only in the North American contextbut in Europe too, extending the boundaries ofthe urban frontier – economically,politically, and culturally – has galvanizedpowerful urban coalitions in the task ofre-taking – both ideologically and materially– city spaces from the visible and symbolicelements of urban degeneration. The project ofurban reclamation has not been neutral but hasbeen formulated within a post welfare,neoliberal politics that has promoted aideology of self responsibilisation within aclimate of moral indifference to increasinglyvisible inequality. These ideological shiftshave been fuelled by, and consolidated in, anevolving form of state ensemble that, as arapidly moving target (Hay 1996: 3), has beenlargely neglected in criminological analysis.It is the contention of this paper that theagents and agencies of the neoliberal state areconstructing the boundaries and possibilitiesof the new urban frontier while simultaneouslyengaging in a project of social control thatwill have far-reaching consequences for how weunderstand the meanings of public space, socialjustice and the parameters of state power.