Community Justice Authorities (CJAs) were heralded on their inception as modernizing Scotland’s community justice system and resolving longstanding tensions between central and local government over community justice control, by encouraging partnership working and providing oversight at a regional level. However, they were largely unsuccessful and were quietly abolished barely a decade later. Using data from two projects, we analyse the policy ‘narrative’ of CJAs in relation to features of a changing political context – particularly the (re-)establishment of Scotland’s national government, its shifting relationship with local government and policy convergence and divergence with England and Wales. CJAs’ origins in local/national compromise created constitutional flaws which constrained their operation and ultimately sealed their fate, but they nonetheless began to develop distinct identities and contributions which have been largely overlooked. The case of CJAs illustrates how evolving local and national political contexts shape the development of justice institutions.

This article presents the results of the first empirical qualitative research on the provision of restorative justice (RJ) in Scotland, based on interviews with 14 practitioners. In Scotland, RJ has attracted the attention of penal reformers and practitioners since the late 1980s, offering an alternative to criminal justice practices based on retribution and/or rehabilitation whilst promising to reduce reoffending and heal people harmed by crime. In 2017, the Scottish Government has fully recognized the existence of RJ by issuing the first national ‘Guidance’ for the delivery of this process, followed by an ambitious ‘Action Plan’. In spite of such a long-lasting interest and recent policy recognition, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the organization and actual delivery of RJ in Scotland. In fact, research on this subject is scant, anecdotal and dated. This article addresses this knowledge gap by presenting original data on the provision of RJ within Scottish local authorities. The findings show similar understandings of RJ, context-specific organizational models and common systemic challenges characterizing RJ providers, generating evidence to critically assess recent Scottish policy on RJ, whilst drawing implications with relevance for the development of RJ across Europe.

This article is a novel use of the ‘agonistic framework’ – a theory of penal change developed in the US, which emphasises the role of hidden conflict – to analyse recent organisational reforms to probation in Scotland. It begins by drawing on recent empirical data to analyse the role of conflict between centralising and localist interests in driving these reforms. This is contrasted with a Scottish policy consensus over decarceration through diversion to community penalties, which despite broad support has been unsuccessful. To explain this contradictory situation, the article builds on recent agonistic literature on the exclusion of some conflicts from penal fields, adding new insights about the circumscription of smaller penal fields. It argues that together these factors serve to ‘crowd out’ debates necessary for substantive change. This new development of the agonistic framework helps explain Scotland’s lack of progress towards decarceration, with policy relevance for other smaller jurisdictions.

Scotland's prison population remains stubbornly high despite reforms to sentencing and community penalties (most recently in 2016). Seeking to advance the debate on punishment in Scotland, we use empirical data to support a novel theoretical synthesis of the ‘agonistic framework’ and ‘performative regulation’. We argue that these reforms appear oriented towards decarceration, without substantively engaging with the drivers of imprisonment, and hence exemplify the ‘performative’ nature of much Scottish penal policy. The ‘performance’ is shaped by countervailing political constraints on the Scottish Nationalist government, amid continued debate over independence – but truly progressive penal policy requires radical and substantive responses to the problems that punishment seeks to address.

No abstract