Law as an extrinsic responsivity factor: What’s just is what works!

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine Herzog-Evans

If criminologists and psychologists have studied practitioners’ ethics, they have not integrated the legal system into offender treatment theory. Offender treatment models have, moreover, not taken stock of the Legitimacy of Justice and the Self-Determination literatures, according to which people comply more substantively, and for longer periods of time, with decisions that are made fairly, and respect individuals’ agency. It is generally assumed that despite modern mass managerial and punitive probation, practitioners and their institutions have retained their original well-meaning ethos. In this article, it is suggested that law as a system ought to be integrated into a new subdivision of the Responsivity principle: ‘Extrinsic- Responsivity’. It is further argued that it is high time for probation staff and institutions to lose their untouchable status and be subjected to legal scrutiny and procedural constraints.

2019 ◽  
pp. 119-154
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

This chapter extends the political autonomy theory of self-determination by responding to a variety of challenges. Is collective self-determination possible in a modern mass society, where citizens have (and can only have) a negligible influence over political decisions? How do we define the “self” in self-determination? Does self-determination require democratic governance or is it compatible with nondemocratic arrangements? Does self-determination apply only to overseas dependencies or also to internal minorities? How does it cohere with other international principles, such as territorial integrity? It also contrasts the political autonomy theory with two alternatives: the liberal nationalist theory and the peoplehood theory.


2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Mask ◽  
Catherine E. Amiot ◽  
Celine M. Blanchard ◽  
Julie Deshaies

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document