Quiescent Leviathan? Citizenship and National Security Measures in Late Modernity

The systematic study of political trials and national security measures tends to be associated with the old-fashioned genre of ‘state trials’. Although whiggish or critical reductionism has since tended to prevail, recent social historical work on protest movements, ideology, and rights struggles opens up fresh approaches. The current scholarly shift of attention away from the repressive powers of the state to plural sites of power, while representing an advance, also threatens to relegate the area to neglect. The modern renewal of national security measures can in fact be seen as part of a more complex deployment of law and linked to current debates around state formation, governmentality, and citizenship. As the late modern state is eroded from above by globalization, and from below by demands of identity politics and differentiated citizenship, will such repressive measures be revealed as an anachronism or continue as a final resource of the state in crisis?     

Three Strikes Legislation and Sentencing Commission Objectives

Between 1993 and 1997, state legislatures across the country passed legislation popularly known as "three strikes and you're out" laws. These laws appeared at a time when sentencing commissions existed in many states, and the commissions were involved in the legislative debates leading to the votes on three strikes laws. Thus, the passage of three strikes laws can shed light on one type of interaction between sentencing commissions and legislatures. This article posits a variety of objectives for sentencing commissions during three strikes debates, each a response to the recurring "pathologies" that appear when legislative, judicial, and executive branch officials create sentencing policy. A survey of states that have passed three strikes laws indicates that sentencing commissions have not made any systematic difference in the legislative debates on these statutes. Commissions have little reason to oppose these laws absolutely, and could lose political credibility by doing so. Commissions have incentives instead to argue for limiting the scope of these statutes. Where commissions have been involved in the debates about habitual felon legislation, they have emphasized limits on judicial discretion, focused on the quality of legislative deliberations rather than on legislative outcomes, and devoted little attention to prosecutorial charging decisions.     

The INSPIRE Framework: How Public Administrators Can Increase Compliance with Written Requests Using Behavioral Techniques

Public administrators rely on written communications to send information to citizens and stakeholders, and they are among the heaviest users of the postal service. Behavioral science research has identified several techniques that public administrators can use to increase compliance with written requests and, in turn, increase effectiveness. Currently, however, many written communications from government bodies are not written in a manner that utilizes these techniques. It remains an ongoing challenge for public administrators to identify, understand, and use these techniques in the written communications sent by their organizations. This article presents a framework capturing seven prominent techniques in a simple mnemonic—INSPIRE—that is already being used by several government bodies in Australia. It also provides practical examples of how to use each technique and demonstrates that using these techniques could result in large aggregate improvements in effectiveness and socially desirable outcomes of public administrators' written communications.     

Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism

This paper seeks to evaluate the concept of mainstreaming against a range of feminist critiques of laws and legal systems and to examine the case for the pursuit of feminist politics through mainstreaming strategies. It begins, in section two, by identifying theme sin existing mainstreaming literature, and then in section three considers the potential of mainstreaming to tackle the causes o fine quality. In particular it questions whether mainstreaming can address the patriarchal nature of laws and legal systems and the essentialising tendencies of law, and whether mainstreaming can effectively tackle market-driven inequality. A final section considers the conditions under which feminists might consider engagement with mainstreaming and the limits of such strategies.     

减少关押看管：社区矫正的贡献

关押已经宣告为有罪或者正在等待审判的人员,是一个具有理论与实践价值的问题。本研究表明在一个关押率低的州,保释金支持项目能够分配到足够的资源,并以一种高姿态对待那些主要的决定者,这说明在司法系统审讯前和宣判阶段,对社区矫正的投资能够降低关押的财政和社会成本,社区矫正项目同时还有能力提升犯罪司法系统的有效性。但是,一些政治性因素,诸如“严厉打击犯罪”舆论的普及,将会限制澳大利亚人在自己的权限范围内采用社区为本的矫正方案。