Despite the proliferation of work on the 'punitive turn', issues concerning its definition and meas

Punishment, Youth Justice and Cultural Contingency: Towards a Balanced Approach (Muncie, 2011).

Green's (2007, 2008, 2009) recent comparative work on child-on-child homicides in England and Norway has drawn attention to political and cultural explanations to account for differences in levels of state punitiveness. His work finds support for the distinction made by Arend Lijphart (1999) between consensus and majoritarian democracy, through his argument that English majoritarian political culture created powerful incentives to exploit the homicide of James Bulger in ways that were not present in Norway. Drawing on comparative research in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand, this article joins with Green in enlisting political culture as an important explanatory variable yet challenges the usefulness of Lijphart's typology in explaining penal difference.

This article examines recent research on risk assessment and probation practice in Ireland and relates the findings to the ongoing debate regarding risk management practices in probation. The piece discusses current theoretical arguments on the influence of risk in criminal justice and outlines the impact of risk discourse on probation practice in Ireland and England and Wales. Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, Irish probation officers’ attitudes are examined in order to highlight key issues facing probation officers when making risk decisions. These findings are compared and contrasted to other research results from England and Wales. All the conclusions identify both positive and negative consequences of adopting risk tools and point to the continued salience of clinical judgment over actuarial methods of risk assessment. It is argued that the research highlights the role of ‘resistance’ by criminal justice professionals in mediating the effects of the ‘new penology’ at the level of implementation. The idea of resistance holds particular relevance for probation practice in Ireland where professional discretion is maintained within the National Standards framework. Despite this, to date there has been an uncritical approach taken to risk assessment which may ignore the dangers of risk inflation/deflation and the need to take into account local factors in assessing risk of reoffending.

In light of recent debates on 'public criminology', this article chooses to focus on teaching as a way of reaching more publics. The various characteristics of a more public and engaged discipline are discussed and applied specifically to the teaching of criminology, including the relative merits and demerits of reorienting teaching in this way. Following on from this discussion, the article outlines some practical ways in which this vision can be realised. Given the many affinities between the Burawoyan concept of public '-ologies' and the scholarship of learning and teaching, an argument is advanced for teaching as one of the first steps towards the practice of a more public criminology.