Behind the Walls and Beyond: Restorative Justice,Instrumental Communities,and Effective Residential Treatment

Although restorative justice principles and practice have been applied extensively in community‐based juvenile justice settings, implementation in residential treatment facilities has been far less common. We describe recent experimentation and possibilities for broader application to disciplinary infractions, the response to harm and crime, promoting community and citizen input, “community building” for conflict resolution skill development and changing the culture of facilities, and reentry. We conceptualize three “communities” as most relevant to addressing needs of incarcerated youths, their victims, and support groups, and then discuss theoretical frameworks and empirical research supportive of restorative practice in this context. Challenges to implementation of restorative practice, compatibility with other treatment and disciplinary agendas, and concerns about preserving the integrity of the model are also considered.     

A problem with empirical studies of party policy shifts: Alternative measures of party shifts are uncorrelated

Many recent cross-national studies analyse the causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts, using party position measures derived from election manifestos, expert surveys or voter surveys. However few studies validate their findings by analysing multiple measures of party policy shifts. In this article, data on European parties’ position shifts on both European integration and left-right ideology is analysed, showing that this is problematic because, while alternative measures of party policy positions correlate strongly in cross-sectional analyses, alternative measures of parties’ policy shifts are essentially uncorrelated in longitudinal analyses. Suggestions are offered on how to address this problem.     

TOWARDS A BETTER PUBLIC LAW?

In the UK Constitution, the major weapon of judicial control over the exercise of governmental power is provided by the action for judicial review. This action serves to keep public bodies within the scope of the powers conferred on them by law. Prior to the present Law Commission inquiry into procedural aspects of judicial review, the matter was last examined in 1977 since when there have been significant changes in the ways in which governmental power is exercised and controlled. This article takes as its focus the Law Commission's Report No.226 Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals and examines specific proposals contained therein arguing that, underlying the reforms, there exists no coherent vision of the future role of public law. Instead, what is revealed is a confused cocktail of measures in which the tension between the legitimate needs of public administration and the opposing requirement that government act according to law remains unacknowledged and thereby unresolved. There is, moreover, a disappointing failure to evaluate the experience of public law procedures found in other jurisdictions. In response to these perceived deficiencies, the authors set out an alternative and principled account of judicial review, the central feature of which is to ensure that public power is subjected to an appropriate degree of judicial scrutiny. This alternative account is later used to inform arguments about specific reforms. In this regard, the valuable experience of other jurisdictions'public law procedures is also drawn upon.