The ICC and the Prevention of Atrocities: Criminological Perspectives

One of the founding principles of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the prevention of atrocities by punishing those most responsible for them. This paper builds on the literature that has both hailed and critiqued the prospects of the ICC’s ability to deter future atrocities, adding insights from criminology and psychology to enhance the understanding of the ICC’s deterrent capabilities. This will allow for a more careful analysis of how the deterrence process exactly works. The paper then uses these insights to examine the ICC’s experiences over the past 14 years with deterring offenders. The main findings are that, although the ICC can constructively contribute to a normative shift toward accountability and a change in international rules of legitimacy, its prospects for the direct and meaningful deterrence of future atrocities are slim. The current practice of relying on the ICC as a crisis management tool is therefore both unwise and unfair.     

Flexible framing: Analysing innovative austerity talk from a cultural perspective

This article examines how local policy elites conceptualize and communicate potential innovations to overcome the fiscal crisis. Four austerity frames based on cultural theory are developed: an individualist, hierarchist, egalitarian and fatalist frame. Two expectations are tested by tracing frame usage in austerity speeches by the leadership in Birmingham, Cologne and Rotterdam. First, the modest contribution of the individualist frame in NPM‐sceptic Cologne is confirmed, but no evidence is found of individualist dominance in NPM‐minded Birmingham. Second, it is shown that leaders in Birmingham and Rotterdam combine elements of multiple frames so as to create a new promising narrative which opens up routes towards innovation. The importance of ‘frame flexibility’ is stressed to deal with the complexities of coping with the fiscal crisis in ways that are logical (given available views) and innovative (exploring alternative views), and highlight the importance of further developing understandings of such (municipal) coping.     

Judgment and Calculation in the Selection of Sentence

Formal sentencing guidelines, which are increasingly seen as the best means of eliminating unwarranted disparity, have undoubted merits. Well-crafted guidelines can promote more transparent and coherent sentencing practices. Their primary goal will usually be to ensure that similarly situated offenders convicted of similar offences receive broadly similar penalties. This, in turn, should increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. Judicially-developed guidance has its own advantages. A judgment, unlike a statute or a formal guideline, must persuade its audience as to the merits of the decision reached. Appeal court sentencing judgments must (or ideally should) engage in some degree of moral reasoning so as to explain why a particular offence or offender deserves the penalty that is being imposed or upheld. Adjudication of this nature plays an important role in stimulating debate and deliberation about the purposes of punishment, the appropriate use of particular sentencing options, the relevance of various offence- and offender-related factors and other fundamental questions about which opinions will inevitably change over time. Although they may have distinct epistemic properties and different objectives, formal guidelines and judicially-developed principles have their own unique merits. We should therefore aim for a system that incorporates the best qualities of both. In practice, this means that guidelines should be so constructed as to leave space for judicial deliberation about fundamental principles and current practice. In this way, guideline creators and courts can continue to learn from each other.     

PHYSICAL EDUCATION: AMENDING THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT TO RESTRICT RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

There are no federal laws restricting the use of restraint or seclusion in public or private schools. Such laws exist at the state level, but the specifics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Federal legislation is necessary in order to ensure that students are not treated differently in each state based on legislative disparities between those states. The lack of a uniform standard for restraint and seclusion subjects students, a disproportionate number of whom have disabilities, to unreasonable physical control by other persons. These practices convey punishment, fear, abandonment, and provide little positive benefits. The amendment proposed in this Note will ensure that seclusion and restraint are only used when the student poses a direct threat to the health or safety of him or her self or others. Staff must be trained in the safe and proper use of these procedures so that they are performed in a reasonable manner, including utilization for a limited amount of time and the exhaustion of positive disciplinary alternatives prior to the utilization of these procedures. Furthermore, parental consent to the use of these procedures is imperative.