Experiencing Youth Justice: Process, Meaning and Legitimacy

Reform of the youth justice system, including the wide incorporation of restorative justice approaches, was a central component of the Criminal Justice Review (2000). Following the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, the Youth Justice Review (2011) made a series of recommendations for further reforms. These included proposals for the introduction of a statutory time limit in youth cases to tackle avoidable delay. Strengthening legitimacy and advancing rights-based approaches are key themes underpinning the recommendations of Youth Justice Review (2011). Young people’s views of justice within the system are critical to our understanding of how such aims can be achieved. This presentation is based on findings from a longitudinal qualitative study exploring young people’s experiences of transitions into and from custody in the Juvenile Justice Centre. Using a life-history approach young people’s experiences of justice at various stages of the criminal justice process and in the wider context of their lives is explored. Key issues such as social contexts, legitimacy and perceptions of fairness are highlighted and the implications of this for system reform are critically examined.

Notes from Some Small Countries: A Study of the 'New Punitiveness' in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand

In recent years there has been a remarkable surge of interest in the concept of punitiveness in theoretical criminology. Accounts serve to emphasise rupture over continuity, drawing attention to the increased focus on managerialism, risk and expressive penal policies in countries such as England and the US. Criticisms of these accounts have drawn attention to the weak empirical base for such assertions and the continued relevance of local cultural, historical and political conditions in mediating the effect of more punitive trends. In light of the relative neglect of smaller jurisdictions in this literature it was decided to locate these debates in three small common law jurisdictions, namely, Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand over the period 1976-2006 with a view to assessing the empirical evidence for penal change. This was done using a broader definition of punitiveness than normally employed incorporating indices relating to the ‘front end’ (eg police powers) as well as the ‘back end’ (eg prison and probation) of the criminal justice system. Data were collected on the three case studies using a multi-method approach involving examination of extensive quantitative data, interviews with key criminal justice stakeholders and documentary analysis. The data provide some support for the ‘new punitiveness’ thesis in these countries through a pattern of increased legislative activity aimed at controlling violent and sexual offenders and significant increases in the lengths of sentences imposed. However, analysis of qualitative data and a larger number of variables reveals distinctly different patterns of punitiveness over the thirty year period in the three countries. It is argued that the study holds important lessons for comparative criminology into the ‘new punitiveness’. There is a need for qualitative as well as quantitative data; for multiple rather than singular indices across a wide range of areas (juvenile justice, prison conditions, etc); and for ‘front end’ as well as ‘back end’ indices.

The Elasticity of Rehabilitation

This paper contributes to a debate on what constitutes rehabilitation. Current criminal justice practice tends to focus on lowering recidivism by utilising strategies geared towards cognitive behavioural modification and educational/vocational skill development. The paper focuses on the perspectives of custodial educators in a Juvenile Justice Centre in Northern Ireland. Their definition of rehabilitation is less concerned about lowering recidivism and instead focuses more on meeting the needs of the young people entering custody, more so than preparing them for their return to the community. Education staff present a model of rehabilitation that is fundamentally about improving the lives of young people. Despite expecting young people to return to custody Education staff contend that young people’s lives improved because they were exposed to a welcoming, caring and pro‐social environment which has helped the young people transform inttody.

'Travails of Truth: Achieving Justice for Victims of Impunity in Nigeria”'

Following its transition to democracy from an authoritarian military rule marked by gross violations of human rights, Nigeria established the Human Rights Violations Investigations Commission (HRVIC) in 1999. This paper critically examines the contributions of the HRVIC, popularly known as the ‘Oputa Panel,’ to the field of transitional justice and the rule of law. It sets out the process of establishing the Commission, its mandate and how this mandate was interpreted during the course of the Commission’s work. The challenges faced by the Oputa Panel, particularly those that relate to its legal status and relationship with the judiciary, are analyzed in an attempt to draw useful guidelines from these challenges for other truth commissions. Recourse by powerful individuals to the judicial process in a bid to shield themselves from the HRVIC merits particular review as it raises questions regarding the transformation of the judiciary and the rule of law in the wake of an authoritarian regime.

UK Power Sector Challenge to National Allocation Plan Under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Refused by the European Court of Justice

In Case T-130/06 Drax Power and others v European Commission, the Court of First Instance held that an application by Drax Power and others for annulment of Commission Decision (C(2006)426 final of 22 February 2006 concerning a proposed amendment to the National Allocation Plan notified by the UK in accordance with the EU Emissions Trading Directive was inadmissable. The Court ruled that the applicants could not be considered to be 'directly concerned' by the contested decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 of the European Treaty, on legal standing: 'Any natural or legal person may, under the same conditions, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision, which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another persion, is of direct and individual concern to the former...'

Improvising (Il)legality: Justice and the Irish Diaspora, NYC, 1930-32

The Seabury Commission, 1930-32, probed allegations of corruption made against, amongst others, the Irish-American Mayor of New York City, James J. ‘Jimmy’ Walker, and the Irish-dominated Tammany Hall, the Democratic political machine that had supported Walker. Taking the Seabury inquiry as its focus, this article explores these allegations from the perspective of Critical Studies in Improvisation (C.S.I.) fused with postcolonial critique. Improvisation, in accordance with C.S.I. principles, is not a lawless or extempore event; it is, instead, lawful, or full of law. The laws of improvisation may appear impenetrable to those unfamiliar with the practice. However, when read through a hibernocentric postcolonial perspective, their meaning and form become more understandable. As will be argued in this article, diasporic communities are inherently improvisatory; that is, they utilise improvisational techniques to help adapt and respond to new situations and social contexts. To be queried is whether the law and politics practiced by Tammany and Walker, taken together, constituted a markedly Irish approach to justice, one that entailed not scripted or planned illegality, as was alleged by Judge Seabury, but improvisations on Anglo-Protestant law as a response to the displacement of and discrimination against the Irish Diaspora in early twentieth century America.

Considering Just-World Thinking in Counter-Terrorism Cases: Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland

Recent literature has drawn a parallel between the discriminatory application of counterterrorism legislation to the Irish population in the United Kingdom during the Northern Ireland conflict and the targeting of Muslims after September 2001. Less attention has been paid to lessons that can be drawn from judicial decision making in terrorism-related cases stemming from the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (“NICA”) jurisprudence on miscarriages of justice in cases regarding counterterrorism offenses. In particular, the Article focuses on cases referred after the 1998 peace agreements in Northern Ireland from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”), a relatively new entity that investigates potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Although the NICA’s human rights jurisprudence has developed significantly in recent years, the study of CCRC-referred cases finds that judges have retained confidence in the integrity of the conflict-era counterterrorism system even while acknowledging abuses and procedural irregularities that occurred. This study partially contradicts contentions that judicial deference to the executive recedes in a post-conflict or post-emergency period. Despite a high rate of quashed convictions, the NICA’s decisions suggest that it seeks to limit a large number of referrals and demonstrate a judicial predisposition to defend the justness of the past system’s laws and procedure. This perspective is consistent with what social psychologists have studied as “just-world thinking,” in which objective observers, although motivated by a concern with justice, believe—as a result of cognitive bias—that individuals “got what they deserved.” The Article considers other potential interpretations of the jurisprudence and contends that conservative decision making is particularly dangerous in the politicized realm of counterterrorism and in light of the criminalization of members of suspect communities.

Old truths and new politics:Does truth commission 'publicness' impact democratization?

This article analyzes the relationship between truth and politics by asking whether the 'publicness' of a truth commission - defined by whether it has public hearings, releases a public report, and names perpetrators - contributes to democratization. The article reviews scholarship relevant to the potential democratizing effects of truth commissions and derives mechanisms that help explain this relationship. Work from the transitional justice field as well as democratization and political transition more generally is considered. Using a newly-constructed Truth Commission Publicness Dataset (TCPD), the analysis finds that even after statistically controlling for initial levels of democracy, democratic trends in the years prior to a commission, level of wealth, amnesties and/or trials, the influence of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and different cutoff points for measuring democratization across a number of models, more publicness predicts higher levels of democracy years after the commission has finished its work. The more public a truth commission is, the more it will contribute to democratization. The finding that more public truth commissions are associated with higher levels of democratization indicates particular strategies that policymakers, donors, and civil society activists may take to improve prospects for democracy in a country planning a truth commission in the wake of violence and/or government abuse. © The Author(s) 2012.

The EC Commission?s New Adopted Baby

This article looks into the emerging field of health care rights in the EU. The developments in this area seem to have come to a turning point. The EU Commission now wants to consolidate the case law of the European Court of Justice that has had a major impact upon this field of law. In order to provide a contribution to this discussion, this article highlights the shortcomings in the Court?s case law and the aspects which have to be addressed in order to improve the overall situation of EU patients seeking healthcare in other Member States.