The Government Standards Fund made resources available to schools in 2000 to help reduce the number of exclusions and, as a result, many schools established inclusion centres with this purpose in mind. In this article Dawn Preece and Paul Ti m m i n s describe literature and research that support the value of these centres and identify features of a support centre that students felt contributed to their inclusion in school. The results of an evaluation canvassing the perceptions of students attending one such centre are presented and discussed.

Although the 'cognitive interview' has been shown to have the potential to enhance eyewitness recall, the proportion of correct to incorrect information it generates is similar to a 'standard' police interview. If the Police are to employ the cognitive interview, therefore, it is important that jurors and jurists do not accept information gained through it uncritically. Thus, the present study was designed to investigate mock jurors' perceptions of the usefulness of the cognitive interview or its individual components, and how they might influence jurors' assignments of guilt in a mock trial. One hundred and fifty participants read transcripts of a mock trial that focused on the testimony of an eyewitness. Participants were informed that the testimony was elicited with a cognitive interview, its individual components or a control procedure. Broadly speaking, the results showed no significant differences between the cognitive interview or its individual components in terms of mock jurors' perceptions of usefulness and assignments of guilt. Implications are discussed.

Thrce studies are presented which test hypothtscs derived from Equity Theory, Prospect Theory and the principle of Diminishing Marginal Value with regard to preferences for overpunishment and underpunishment in the assignment of penalties to offences of varying severity. The f i t two studies showed that, with dimerent subject sarnpl~s offenas, and kinds of punishments subjects indicated a marked preference for overpunishment rather than underpunishment. when both over punishment and underpunishment deviated from idcal, or equitable, punishment to the same degree. However, the effect was only apparent for serious offences. A third study showed that the overpunishment preference for a serious offence existed even when the overpunishment deviated 30% more from ideal punishment than underpunishment, but again no preferena was shown'for the less serious offence. As the results cannot be readily explained in terms of any of the three explanatory principles. a possible explanation in terms of concept of negative reciprocity is advanced.