PUBLIC OPINION AND PENAL POLICY

This article discusses the issue of who should run the penal system 7he major assumption of penal administrators has been that the public was in favor of a punishment policy. This research indicates that the public is not as punishment-oriented as expected, though older respondents gave greater approval to restrictive conjugal visitation policies. Age variations may indicate a change in public opinion. The evidence also indicates that the public is more willing to support such programs as conjugal visits and work release than was previously thought. A willingness for more favorable treatment of inmates was found for those who had some contact with inmates.     

The decentralization of health care in developing countries: organizational options

The complex ways in which decentralization is practised in the field of government health services are examined. Organizationally, decentralization means a choice between different types of public institution, which vary in terms of: the areas over which they have jurisdiction, the functions delegated to local institutions; and the way decision-makers are recruited, so producing institutions. There is little agreement about the optimum size of areas, either in terms of population or territory. Areas cannot be delimited without consideration being given to the powers to be exercised at each level. The specification of functions always assumes certain things about who will exercise the delegated powers. The two issues cannot be separated. Five structures of decentralization are distinguished, each of which could in principle be created at regional, district and village/community level: the multi-purpose local authority, the single-purpose council, the hybrid council, the single purpose executive agency, the management board, field administration, health teams, and interdepartmental committees. Whatever the institutions used for decentralization, the choice of structures and the ensuing process of decision-making will be highly charged politically. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why Conceptual Models and "Big" Institutions Matter: A Response to David Altheide,Nina Eliasoph,William Gamson,and Todd Gitlin

The two cases analyzed here demonstrate a new journalistic practice of interviewing enemy leaders at times of war. We argue that whereas traditionally journalists had accepted the principle that when the nation is under threat, patriotism precedes professionalism, in the new media environment, with the domestic public exposed to international TV channels, this is no longer an option. As a result, journalists act more independently, even when this entails public resentment and government disapproval. We demonstrate how in interviewing enemy leaders, journalists play the part of politicians once diplomatic negotiations have ceased. Although such interviews provide high ratings and amplify the relevance of journalism at times of war, the irregular settings in which they are conducted undermine the journalists' endeavor. From the interviews we examined, it emerges that the cross pressures on the interviewers lead to a questioning style that deviates significantly from normative news interviews. Interviewers tend to be dragged to one of the extremes of hostility or deference. Finally, we show how the ways in which domestic governments respond to these interviews serve as additional evidence of their controversial character.