Regulate Yourself

The Leveson Inquiry recommended that a new press regulator be created, with a statutory backing—which the government and opposition agreed should be a Royal Charter. Presently, a Press Recognition Panel, backed by the Charter, has been created, but has attracted no requests for recognition. Only one regulator has been set up—IPSO: it has a membership of most of the newspaper and magazine groups in the UK, but will not ask for recognition, since it does not wish to have any formal link with the state. Though the campaign against the Royal Charter has been grossly overblown, the press is right to refuse to join an institution which is guaranteed by the state. State‐backed regulation, in any form, will not in the UK lead to tyranny, censorship or any more than occasional meddling. But a link to the state is a bad idea for an independent press. Not only does this set a bad precedent, opening up a temptation for behind‐the‐scenes pressure, but more importantly it misses the point. Bad and abusive journalism is not improved by regulation. It is improved by journalists understanding the main task of journalism is to report and analyse accurately and neutrally. This complements robust debate and opinion and contributes greatly to a well‐informed citizenry.     

Adaptation and the foreign policy bureaucracy: The experience of federal states

Members of the Commonwealth do not use the title ‘ambassador’ for the heads of diplomatic missions which they send to one another. Instead, they use the title ‘high commissioner’. This article firstly examines how the office of high commissioner emerged to meet the representational needs of states owing allegiance to a common sovereign. Secondly, it explains why the office survived the transformation of the British empire into the modern Commonwealth of sovereign states. Thirdly, the article considers the factors that continue to make the office appealing to its holders and a diplomatic asset to their states.     

Book Reviews

John F. Manley and Kenneth M. Dolbeare, The Case Against the Constitution: From the Antifederalists to the Present (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp, Inc., 1987), 199 pp.

Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 328 pp.

Sheldon S. Wolin, The Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 228 pp.

Peter Brown, Minority Party: Why Democrats Face Defeat in 1992 and Beyond (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991).     

Agency and outcome expectancies for crime desistance: measuring offenders' personal beliefs about change†

Abstract

While the majority of offenders eventually desist from crime, the internal psychological mechanisms hypothesized to drive the process of desistance and offender change have not been systematically measured. This study developed scales for assessing intention to change, or offenders' beliefs regarding their perceived ability to stay crime-free (agency) and expected outcomes for crime and desistance (expectancies). Incarcerated offenders (N=142) endorsed these beliefs in a way that is consistent with theories of offender change. The structure of beliefs suggests offenders with positive expectancies for desistance and negative expectancies for crime also endorse a higher sense of personal agency to desist. Outcome expectancies for desistance were unrelated to static risk variables, suggesting these measures may be complementary to risk assessment. Overall, the scales developed for this research showed high internal consistency and evidence for concurrent and construct validity. Refining the measurement methods and assessing recidivism outcome post-release should further advance this avenue of research.