‘Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009—An attempt to arbitrate on a system’s logic.’

The Child Care (Amendment) Bill was passed by the Seanad on 6th May 2010 and will shortly be enacted as legislation as the Child Care (Amendment) Act, 2010. The Bill, consisting of six Parts amends existing legislation relating to secure or ‘special care’ and makes some further amendments to the Child Care Act, 1991. The Act also provides for the dissolution of the Children Acts Advisory Board, a statutory body established in 2003, whose function was to advise the Minister on policy relating to specialist residential services (specifically Special Care Units) . This article examines the provisions of the Child Care Bill (2009) setting these in the context of current policy and previous legislation. It outlines that while the legislation outlines a detailed process for the application and administration of Special Care Orders, the provisions are weakened by the removal of external oversight mechanisms and the limitations placed on the role of the Guardian ad Litem.

“The Double Feature Evil”: Efforts to Eliminate the American Dual Bill

The essay discusses the actions and motivations of various groups that tried to end the practice of double feature film exhibition in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. Used as a price-cutting strategy, double features were embraced by marginal exhibitors and low-budget producers, but attacked by most major studios and established theatre chains. Methods employed to control the double feature included voluntary bans, governmental legislation, and legal action. During the depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal opposed the double feature as a strategy likely to undermine established admission price levels. But the double feature proved resilient and survived all these efforts, as well as an additional series of assaults, based on conservation of energy and materiel, mounted during the Second World War.

Taking the Next Step? Achieving another Bill of Rights

The aim of this article is to explore the recent Bill of Rights debate in the UK. This is deliberately located in the UK’s complex ‘national question’ because of the obsessive focus on achieving a proper grounding for human rights. A new form of national human rights protectionism appears to be emerging and merits careful consideration. The article suggests that it is better to acknowledge and accept the existence of a plurality of nationalisms in the UK in these discussions and understand how an essentially ‘British nationalist’ discourse sounds and works in that overall context. The concern is that the Bill of Rights debate is becoming an inadequate surrogate for the more challenging constitutional conversations that are required, and human rights discourse thus invested with expectations of national renewal that it can never meet and does not have the internal resources to resolve. If the process does go forward it may be better to prepare the ground for a deeper and wider constitutional dialogue across these islands than stumble clumsily and divisively into this territory simply via ‘another’ UK Bill of Rights.

Keeping it in the Family: Surviving Political Exile, 1870-1917

A sentence of exile was a regular feature of the Russian revolutionary’s underground career. In order to survive this punishment and continue their struggle against Tsarism, revolutionaries relied on help from their fellow exiles, their party, the Political Red Cross and, often, their families. Historians have rarely acknowledged the role of kin in supporting the revolutionary movement and very few studies have noted the attempts by families to mitigate the worst aspects of a sentence of exile. This article explores the ways in which spouses and siblings, parents and children obtained concessions from the Tsarist authorities regarding their loved ones’ sentences of exile, helped off-set the poverty to which many exiles were reduced, and, above all, combated the sense of loneliness and depression to which those in exile were exposed. This article argues that such familial support had a collective and positive impact on revolutionaries’ experience of exile. More broadly it provides an illuminating case study of the blurred space between public and private which the revolutionary occupied and highlights the way in which the movement depended on help from sympathisers and family members in order to function effectively on a daily basis.

Judicial Rehabilitation and the ‘Clean Bill of Health’ in Criminal Justice.

Drawing on an important survey of European and Australian policies toward ‘judicial rehabilitation,’ this article makes the following arguments. First, the rehabilitation movement should return to the origins of the word ‘rehabilitation’ and focus at least as much on efforts to remove and relieve ex-prisoner stigma as on treatment and reform efforts. There will be no ‘rehabilitation revolution’ without this. Second, these efforts should involve active, not passive redemption. Rehabilitation processes that require almost a decade or more of ‘crime-free’ behaviour before forgiving an individual for his or her crimes are just and fair, but they miss the point of rehabilitation. Policies should encourage, support and facilitate good behaviour and not just reward it in retrospect. Third, rehabilitation should not just be done, but be ‘seen to be done,’ ideally in a ritualised format. This sends an important message to the individual and wider society. Finally, I argue that it may be better to forgive than forget past crimes. That is, rather than burying past crimes as if they never happened, states should instead acknowledge and formally recognise that people can change, that good people can do bad things, and that all individuals should be able to move on from past convictions.