Juvenile Shackling Reform: The Judicial Role in Ensuring Trauma‐Informed Courts and Why States Are Rethinking Restraints

In juvenile courts around the country, youth are routinely shackled, without any evidence that these young people are a danger to anyone or likely to attempt flight. A number of states are moving away from this practice. Shackling reform initiatives are motivated by constitutional issues, emerging science around adolescent development, and a growing recognition of the need for trauma‐informed, evidence‐based courts. Judges are ultimately responsible for safeguarding the rights of the young people who appear in court, and must uphold the dignity of the courtroom. A review of jurisdictions that have adopted limits on juvenile shackling shows that these policies have not resulted in breaches of safety.     

Book reviews

Social Policy Research, Martin Bulmer (ed.), London, Macmillan, 1978, pp. 373, £5.95.

Making Budgets, James N. Danziger, Sage Publications, 1978, pp. 255, £8.50 cloth edition and £4.25 paperback.

Universality, Selectivity and Effectiveness in Social Policy, Bleddyn Davies (in association with Mike Reddin), Heinemann, London, 1978, pp. viii &; 264, £9.50.

Implementation in a Bureaucracy, Control in a Bureaucracy, Andrew Dunsire, Oxford, Martin Robertson, 1978, pp. Vol.1260, Vol. II 263, £15 each.

Planning the Social Services, N. Falk and J. Lee, Saxon House, Farnborough, 1978, pp. x &; 113, £7.50.

Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective, W. I. Jenkins, London, Martin Robertson, 1978, pp. 278, £8.95.

Interactions and Interventions in Organizations, Iain L. Mangham, John Wiley &; Sons, 1978, pp. 150, price not known.     

重构公共政策评估——基于公民权与行政权相对平衡的分析

对公共政策进行评估,形式上是对政策方案执行前、执行中和执行后的评价,实质上则是行政权与公民权的再分配。本文从公共政策过程出发,以公民权与行政权相对平衡为分析框架,将公共决策事前评估的重点安排为公民权比重大于行政权,这是确定一种公民本位的制度安排;将公共决策事中评估的重点安排为行政权比重大于公民权,是以最少的时间和成本实现这一制度安排;将公共决策事后评估的重点安排为公民权比重等于行政权,是因为行政权与公民权的和谐相处可以避免公共政策自身运作的损耗,使其沿着正确轨道良性健康进行,并为新一轮的公共政策发挥创造良好环境和基础。