A prospective comparative evaluation of a Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Service in Belfast

There is continued interest in the planning, development and implementation of services designed to identify, detainees with mental illness and connect them to health and social services. However, currently little is known about how best to configure, organise and deliver these services. The study employed a prospective follow-up design with a comparator group to describe and evaluate a police mental health liaison service based in Belfast. Participants were recruited from two neighbouring police stations, only one of which provided a mental health liaison service. Outcomes including mental health status, drug and alcohol misuse, risk-related behaviour and ‘administrative’ outcomes were assessed at the time of arrest and six months later. The service was successful in identifying and assessing detainees though there appeared to be similar between-group levels of mental health problems over time. Results highlight a need to develop firmer linkages and pathways between criminal justice liaison / diversion services and routine health and social services. 

Experiencing Youth Justice and Penality

Much of the recent literature on youth justice has focused on administrative aspects of the system and the socio-political contexts that have led to the ‘production’ of the youthful offender as a subject and locus of intervention. This has largely been driven by the extent to which youth justice has been crafted as a distinct penal sphere, evident in its unyoking from universal children’s services (Muncie and Goldson, 2013) and the establishment of separate agencies to administer and govern this ‘system’ (Souhami, 2014). Driven by policy hyperactivity and a plethora of legislation expanding the reach of the system, for much of the 1990s and 2000s increasing numbers of young people were brought under its gaze.

Particular attention has been paid to the impact of neo-liberal governance on the discourses, rationales and philosophies underpinning contemporary youth justice policy and practice. Writing specifically in the English and Welsh context, several authors have identified that the resulting ‘system’ embodies multiple, contradictory and competing discourses (Muncie, 2006; Fergusson, 2007; Gray, 2013). Within this ‘melting pot’ Fergusson (2007) notes the disjuncture between policy rhetoric, implementation and lived experience and Phoenix (2015) argues that systems-based analyses, much in favour amongst academics, foreclose a wider consideration of questions of what ‘justice’ actually means.

Recent attention towards the perspectives of practitioners working in this sphere has pointed to greater nuances than broader penal narratives suggest (see: Field, 2007; Briggs, 2013; Gray, 2013; Kelly and Armitage, 2015). Yet similar attention has not been given to experiences of youth justice (for an exception see – Phoenix and Kelly, 2013). However, it is precisely young people’s experiences, which would add significantly to current knowledge and potentially bridge the gap between discussions about penal philosophies, how youth justice policies are framed, how they are enacted and how they are experienced.

This chapter provides an overview of recent developments in the field of youth justice and penality in the United Kingdom. The chapter argues that a theoretical focus on macro-level trends (Hannah-Moffat and Lynch, 2012), alongside a narrowly defined research agenda, have largely excluded young people’s experiences of justice and punishment from contemporary analysis. Drawing on young people experiences of different aspects of youth justice in Northern Ireland and beyond, the chapter illuminates what a close understanding of lived experience can add to knowledge. In particular it demonstrates that the effects of interventions can be different to their aims and intentions; and that re-instating the youth experience can add support to calls for greater attention to wider issues of social justice.

Revitalizing the PE social-justice agenda in the global era: Where do we go from here?

Critical theorists have called attention to the intensification of diversity that is now occurring inside and outside of school, while critically engaging with the detrimental effects of globalization on equity, diversity, and social justice. Globalization presents new challenges to education and to issues of social justice. In this article, we argue that there is a need for scholars in the field of physical education (PE) to re-think and re-frame the social-justice agenda to address current inequalities produced by globalization. To support this argument, first, we reflect on the impact of global neoliberalism on PE; second, we discuss the ways in which, as a result of global neoliberalism, public health discourses have an “othering” effect on ethnically diverse young people; third, we propose a theoretical shift from a focus on equality to a focus on difference; and finally, we conclude with considerations for future research and curricula in school PE.

Address delivered by Chief Justice Eugene B. Gary, L.L.D. at the dedication of the Court House, McCormick County, September 27th, 1923

This document is an address by Chief Justice Eugene B. Gary that discusses the civilization of America in two contexts. The first context is the principles of civilization applicable to their democratic form of government. The second context is the dangers that threaten to destroy the very foundation of their government.

Spatial justice: law and the geography of withdrawal

While spatial justice could be the most radical offspring of law’s recent spatial turn, it remains instead a geographically informed version of social justice. The majority of the existing literature on the subject has made some politically facile assumptions about space, justice and law, thereby subsuming the potentially radical into the banal. In this article, I suggest that the concept of spatial justice is the most promising platform on which to redefine, not only the connection between law and geography, but more importantly, the conceptual foundations of both law and space. More concretely, the article attempts two things: first, a radical understanding of legal spatiality. Space is not just another parameter for law, a background against which law takes place, or a process that the law needs to take into consideration. Space is intertwined with normative production in ways that law often fails to acknowledge, and part of this article is a re-articulation of the connection. Second, to suggest a conception of spatial justice that derives from a spatial law. Such a conception cannot rely on given concepts of distributive or social justice. Instead, the concept of spatial justice put forth here is informed by post-structural, feminist, post-ecological and other radical understandings of emplacement and justice, as well as arguably the most spatial of philosophical discourses, that of Deleuze–Guattari and the prescribed possibilities of space as manifold.

Law’s spatial turn: geography, justice and a certain fear of space

This is a critical reading of the current literature on law and geography. The article argues that the literature is characterized by an undertheorization of the concept of space. The focus is either on the specific geography of law in the form of jurisdiction, or as a simple terminological innovation. Instead, the article suggests that law’s spatial turn ought to consider space as a singular parameter to the hitherto legal preoccupation with time, history and waiting. This forces law into dealing with a new, peculiarly spatial kind of uncertainty in terms of simultaneity, disorientation, materiality and exclusionary corporeal emplacement. The main area in which this undertheorization forcefully manifests itself is that of spatial justice. Despite its critical potential, the concept has been reduced by the majority of the relevant literature into another version of social, distributive or regional justice. On the contrary, if the peculiar characteristics of space are to be taken into account, a concept of justice will have to be rethought on a much more fundamental level than that.

Giving guilt: the aneconomy of law and justice

The concept of guilt is seen here as debt beyond repayment. Following Derrida, the gesture of giving is placed in the economy of gift, an aneconomical gift that is not part of the exchange cycle. At the same time, guilt is linked to desire, the desire to give and to be free from guilt. Desire is described as the urge to cross over, to apprehend the non-identical and to give oneself away. In this reinforced crossing, where the improbability of giving conditions the improbability of reaching out, guilt and its impetus are found locked up in claustrophobic self-reference. For this reason, the author consults Kierkegaard and Luhmann whose contributions show that the gesture of giving acquires its relevance not so much on account of its recipient, but precisely because of the absence of such a recipient. The combination of an absent recipient and an absented giver fills the gift with an emptiness that can only be channelled back upon itself, in the autopoietics of guilt. This is exactly the fate of the law, which can deal with the guilty but never with guilt (in the above sense). In its attempt to give away guilt, the law attempts to become other than itself: justice. The improbability of crossing over becomes more obvious than ever.