MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2012779838 · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2012.00742_3.x

A New Response to Youth Crime edited by D.J.Smith (Ed.). Abingdon: Routledge (2010) 424pp. £27.50pb IBSN 978‐1‐84392‐754‐9

2012· article· en· W2012779838 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vicky Kemp

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Howard Journal of Criminal Justice · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBlueprintCommissionCriminologyEconomic JusticeCriminal justiceSociologyPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The youth justice system has been subjected to a series of wide-ranging reforms over recent years, but researchers and other commentators have been critical of these changes for failing to provide effective responses to crime and anti-social behaviour. In response to such criticisms, and with concerns over the high costs of public spending on youth justice, an Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour was set up to critically review the youth justice system. Its purpose was to provide a blueprint for an effective, humane and sustainable approach to youth crime and anti-social behaviour that is based on clear principles and sound evidence. The findings were published in the Commission's 2010 report, Time for a Fresh Start. David Smith is a member of the Commission and in this edited book he brings together contributions from leading experts to provide ‘a framework of evidence and analysis’ in order to support the Commission's work. The book contains twelve considered chapters which present its ‘blueprint for reform’. In the first chapter, Smith sets out ‘the need for a fresh start’ and in the next he explores ‘changing patterns of youth’. The key themes explored in the subsequent chapters include the causes and responses to youth crime and anti-social behaviour (Rutter, Graham and Pople), preventing youth crime (Hawkins, Welsh and Utting), families and parenting (Maughan and Gardner), models of youth justice (McAra), youth justice reform in Canada (Bala, Carrington and Roberts), and ‘public opinion, politics and the response to youth crime’ (Jones). In the concluding chapter, Smith summarises some of the main failures of the current system and sets out nine main recommendations for reform, which are said to reflect key issues arising out of this collection of essays. These include reducing the number of cases brought to court as well as the number of young people taken into custody, increasing the use of restorative conferences and requiring resources to be targeted more towards prevention. While this nine-point plan for reform is to be welcomed, it does not provide the radical approach as suggested in the book's title, A New Response to Youth Crime. However, the apparent conservatism of the main recommendations is likely to be influenced by the book's relationship with the Independent Commission. In particular, with the effective politicisation of youth crime over recent years, the editor will be aware that bringing about change will not be easy. Rather than set out a radical blueprint for reform, therefore, Smith's final chapter can be seen as an appeal to policy makers, with a section on ‘costs and benefits’ helping to present a persuasive argument for the need to bring about change. Nevertheless, this collection of essays does provide evidence and analysis which can help to inform change. McAra's chapter is particularly illuminating, as she grapples with some of the complexities involved when examining different models of youth justice. From my own experience of conducting research into an adversarial system of justice, which includes observing children both in police stations and at court, I would argue that the need for alternative models based on welfare and restorative justice principles are long overdue.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,253
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Howard Journal of Criminal JusticeMême sujetCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisTravaux en français237 207