Matching Well-Being to Merit:The Example of Punishment

In this paper, I explore our common-sense thinking about the relation between moral value, moral merit, and well-being. Starting from Ross’s observation that welfarist axiologies ignore our intuitions about desert, I focus on axiologies that take moral merit and well-being to be independent determinants of value. I distinguish three ways in which these axiologies can be formulated, and I then consider their application to the issue of punishment. The objection that they recommend penalties in circumstances in which intuitively we would judge them to be unjustified is examined, and I suggest that it can be met by incorporating temporal information into the way in which value, well-being and moral merit are linked.

‘Transforming justice’: challenges for restorative justice in an era of punishment-based corrections

Scholars of restorative justice have long debated its theoretical relationship with formal criminal justice. This analysis critically examines the range of sociostructural conditions in contemporary society that have halted the spread of restorative policies in practice and prevented them from realizing their transformative potential as an alternative system of justice. These factors are attributed largely to a punitive penal culture that is characterized by policy-making based on penal populism, the governance of risk and a managerialist criminal justice agenda; and the widespread co-optation of restorative programs by the state. This broad argument is explored in the context of two particular case studies – recent developments in youth justice and in sexual offending respectively in England and Wales and elsewhere. This examination ultimately highlights challenges for restorative justice in the current risk-driven penal climate and advocates a need to re-evaluate its relationship with formal state justice.

Amnesties in Transition: Punishment, Restoration, and the Governance of Mercy

Despite the much vaunted triumph of human rights, amnesties continue to be a frequently used technique of post-conflict transitional justice. For many critics, they are synonymous with unaccountability and injustice. This article argues that despite the rhetoric, there is no universal duty to prosecute under international law and that issues of selectivity and proportionality present serious challenges to the retributive rationale for punishment in international justice. It contends that many of the assumptions concerning the deterrent effect in the field are also oversold and poorly theorized. It also suggests that appropriately designed restorative amnesties can be both lawful and effective as routes to truth recovery, reconciliation, and a range of other peacemaking goals. Rather than mere instruments of impunity, amnesties should instead be seen as important institutions in the governance of mercy, the reassertion of state sovereignty and, if properly constituted, the return of law to a previously lawless domain.

In Two Minds? Parental Attitudes toward Physical Punishment in the UK

Since the Millennium, the use of physical punishment in the home has been a widely debated topic across the UK. Reliance on public opinion has been an important feature of this debate with a variety of UK surveys showing that many find physical punishment acceptable and do not support a complete ban on smacking. Drawing on the results from a comprehensive review of the literature, this article highlights that public/parental opinion is less than straightforward. Parents are often ambivalent about physical discipline, do not view it as an optimal method of behaviour management and are more prone to smack when stressed or angry. Likewise, a survey of the disciplinary practices and attitudes of 1000 parents in Northern Ireland shows that majority of parents have negative attitudes towards physical discipline. Nonetheless, many parents continue to smack despite the fact they do not believe it to be effective. Lack of parental support for legislative reform should be reconsidered in the light of this ambivalence. Most important, the UK Government needs to reframe the smacking debate in terms of children's rights rather than relying on public opinion if it is to fulfil its commitment to protect children from harm as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Inhuman and Degrading Punishment, Dignity, and the Limits of Retribution

The recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Vinter and others v United Kingdom provides a much needed clarification of the parameters of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as it applies to whole life orders of imprisonment under mandatory life sentences – essentially, life imprisonment without parole. The Grand Chamber’s judgment refines Strasbourg doctrine on life imprisonment and the prospect of release and illuminates key principles concerning inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the ECHR. This article considers the judgment’s profound significance in relation to both human rights and penology.

Crime, Punishment and Article 3 ECHR: Puzzles and Prospects of Applying an Absolute Right in a Penal Context

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, is considered to enshrine an absolute right. Yet it contains an under-explored element: inhuman and degrading punishment. While torture has been the subject of extensive academic commentary, and inhuman and degrading treatment has been examined to some extent, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishment has not been explored in significant depth, in spite of its considerable potential to alter the penal landscape.

This paper elucidates the key doctrinal elements of inhuman and degrading punishment ‘and treatment associated with it’, in the words of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It addresses a number of ‘puzzles’ or problems which arise in applying the absolute right enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR to sentencing and imprisonment, clarifies ECtHR doctrine and highlights some of its key implications. Bringing a theoretically informed understanding to bear on the application of Article 3 of the ECHR in a penal context, the paper provides clarity and coherence to a complex and crucial intersection between human rights and penology.

Punishment, youth justice and cultural contingency: Towards a balanced approach

Reflecting developments in the broader penological realm, accounts have been advanced over the last number of decades about a ‘punitive turn’ in the youth justice systems of Western democracies. Against the background of this work, this project seeks to identify convergent and divergent trends in the youth justice systems of England, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as well as the rationalities and discourses animating these. The results lend support to research emphasising the continued salience of national, regional and local factors on penal outcomes but also suggest the need to steer an analytical path somewhere between nomothetic (convergent) and idiographic (divergent) accounts.

Parenting practices in Northern Ireland: evidence from the Northern Ireland Household Panel Survey

The impact of parental child-rearing practices on child outcomes has been the subject of much research and debate for many years. Studies carried out within a variety of disciplines and across a number of different countries in the world have indicated that parents tend to use a different pattern of rearing their sons than their daughters, and that child-rearing practices are related to the gender of the parent, as well as to the age and developmental stage of the child. However, there has been little research in Northern Ireland on child-rearing behaviours. In order to address this shortfall, this paper presents an analysis of parents’ perceptions of their interactions with their children. Data from Wave 3 of the Northern Ireland Household Panel Survey were analysed to explore aspects of ‘‘negative’’ parenting practices (arguing, yelling and use of physical punishment) as well as ‘‘positive’’ parenting practices (talking, praising and hugging). The participants were all parents (aged 16 years and over) with children under the age of 16 years living in the same household. Each parent reported his/her interaction with each child (up to a maximum of six children), and in total 1,629 responses were recorded. The results of the research supported previous findings from the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and indicated that the parenting styles of respondents in Northern Ireland were indeed related to the gender and age of the children and to the gender of the parents. The survey found that parents in Northern Ireland tend to have a harsher, more negative style of parenting boys than girls and that children in their teenage years have fewer positive interactions with their parents than younger children. The same parents and children will be followed up in 2007 in order to provide a longitudinal analysis of parent/child relationships in Northern Ireland.

Restorative Justice as a Response to Sexual Offending – Addressing the Failings of Current Punitive Approaches

This article explores the use of restorative justice as a response to sexual crime. The management of high risk sex offenders, particularly in the community post-release, has been a key focus of contemporary popular and political debates on sexual offending. Many offenders fail to come to the attention of the criminal justice system. For those that do, there is the almost blanket application of recent control in the community measures such as sex offender registries and community notification which have failed to prevent reoffending. The response by the media and the public to the presence of sex offenders in the community may also impede offender rehabilitation. The use of punishment alone via formal criminal justice is, therefore, an inadequate deterrent for sexual crimes. Although controversial, this article advocates the use of restorative practices with sexual crime as a proactive, holistic response to the problem and ultimately as a more effective means of reducing the incidence of sexual offences and sex offender recidivism.