The process of reintegration of offenders after release from prison, or during a community sentence, is a key aim of criminal justice policy. This article provides details from recent research that investigated the barriers and opportunities to employment for sex offenders. The authors describe the barriers that are faced by sex offenders and the anxieties that employers experience when employing sex offenders. The authors conclude that the approach taken by the State is less than reintegrative and serves to increase the barriers and reduce the opportunities for employment for sex offenders.This article reports on research conducted during the period December 2004 to May 2005 on the barriers and opportunities to employment for sex offenders. 1 Sex offenders experience more barriers, or higher hurdles, to gaining employment than the majority of offenders. The research reported here investigated the barriers to sex offenders being employed on release and identified potential employment opportunities. There is a range of studies (Lipsey 1995; Kruttschnitt, Uggen and Shelton 2000) that have investigated the issue of the resettlement of prisoners and employment. However, the study reported here is the first that has considered the issue of sex offenders and the barriers and opportunities for their employment post-conviction.Sex offenders present a number of problems in their management in the community. One strategy has been an increase in the use of risk assessments in relation to release licence and community sentences; this has occurred through risk assessment tools such as offender assessment system (OASys) and the risk management structures of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPAs).However, there is a tension in the legislative and policy approach to sex offenders with government legislation, such as sex offender registration and a range of preventative orders (see below), appearing to have resulted in higher levels of restriction placed on sex offenders, and declining levels

Treatment with reboxetine in a schedule commonly used in the FST resulted in a potentiated noradrenergic response to the swim challenge concomitant with behavioral alterations consistent with antidepressant-like activity.

During the course of a recent research project on anti-social behaviour, I made significant use of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to obtain data from the Home Office and local government. In discussions with colleagues about my experiences, I was struck by the general lack of awareness of the provisions and the reluctance to use what is potentially a powerful research tool. This short piece examines why greater use is not being made of the provisions and points to the need for education and the reassessment of assumptions to encourage use of the provisions by academic researchers.The FoI provisions, which came into force on 1 January 2005 1 should be of particular interest to the criminological researcher whose agencies of study are often data rich but reluctant to publicise. The FoI regime covers a wide range of criminal justice agencies including the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice; the Crown Prosecution Service; police forces; State-run prisons; and the probation service. The increasing privatisation of traditional State-run institutions does leave gaps. Currently, for example, privately administered prisons are not covered by the FoI provisions. In 2007 the government issued a consultation paper on whether to widen the provisions to cover such agencies (Ministry of Justice 2007).

With growing levels of homelessness, many municipalities in western jurisdictions are increasing social control of public displays of poverty through criminalisation, marginalisation and banishment. This has recently been apparent in England with the introduction of public spaces protection orders. Based on notions of localism, these grant local government significantly enhanced powers to regulate public space. This article uses the English example to provide a critical, empirically informed, exploration of how populist neo-liberal rationalisations about the street poor are finding increasing favour among local authorities. It charts how in a period of austerity, with municipalities struggling to fulfil welfare obligations to the homeless and other poor, banishment provides a cheaper solution to citizens’ concerns about visible displays of poverty in public space. The article investigates the troubling ways in which municipalities endorse a neo-liberal authoritarian approach to public consultations to claim legitimacy for introducing measures that target vulnerable minorities. It also examines how opponents, with limited success, have challenged such measures and the predominant neo-liberal–populist narrative associated with them.

subprime, foreclosure, mixed-income, social integration, John Rawls,