No abstract

There is strong evidence for the link between domestic violence and child abuse. Agencies' policies regarding domestic violence and child protection are critical in determining the dimensions of practitioner intervention, including safety planning for women and children. This paper explores the issues identified in research around safety planning where there are domestic violence and child protection concerns which was conducted with practitioners in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 2001. In particular, the paper focuses on three of the factors that influence practitioner intervention with women and children. These are: definitional understandings of domestic violence and child abuse; child protection legislative changes, including mandatory reporting and domestic violence as a child-at-risk category; and the NSW child protection statutory authority's response to domestic violence. The interplay between these factors results in complexities of practice for practitioners as they attempt to maximize women's strengths and minimize risks to children's safety. The resultant inconsistent response 'Complexities of practice for practitioners as they attempt to maximize women's strengths and minimize risks to children's safety' to domestic violence and child protection by government and nongovernment agencies suggests the need for domestic violence interagency guidelines.

Democratic policing is a multidimensional, multilevel, and contested concept rooted in political ideology. It is not singular or politically neutral. I argue there are four typologies of democratic policing: right, centre-right, centre-left, and left. In Latin America, in the 1980s and 1990s, countries went through the dual processes of democratisation and the implementation of neoliberal economic policies. The latter increased inequality in wealth and led to deeply divisive debates regarding the place of equality and violence in the definition of democracy. Putting aside these debates on the meaning of democracy, police reform projects in Latin America have embraced communityoriented policing as synonymous with democratic policing. Yet, democratic policing is not a singular concept and political debates matter to its various meanings. The article uses Goertz's (2006. Social science concepts: a user's guide. Princeton University Press) three-level concept analysis to assess the theoretical similarities and differences between the four types of democratic policing. It then tests the theory with empirical data from the cases studies of Argentina (Menem and Kirchners) and Chile (Bachelet and Piñera). The case studies are informed by field research in both countries (2006-2015), and draw on media and human rights reports as well as secondary data. The study finds a gap between theory and practice that calls for more research on policy convergence. More importantly, it reveals the need to situate ideal definitions of democratic policing within political debates on democracy, paying close attention to the role of political ideology.

The Carabineros de Chile played an active role in the repression and leadership of the Pinochet regime, yet today, the police force is one of the most respected institutions in Chile. Few post-authoritarian democracies have been able to restore such esteem for their police as quickly. But what does respect mean? This study analyses the narratives of approximately 50 police experts in Chile. It finds that police experts regard the positive image of the Carabineros as having more to do with fear and an effective communications strategy than police reform. It is important to understand how those Chileans most involved in policy discussions on policing interpret the reasons for respect, as their interpretations can shape the types of policing advocated or practised.

Punitive populism is common throughout Latin America. It involves political and public opinion support for more police officers, greater police autonomy, and tougher laws to punish crime—options that often perpetuate old police practices and resist police reform efforts. This article critically examines the role of the media in fostering punitive populism by examining the sources used by journalists. Comparing the ‘most different’ cases of Argentina and Chile and drawing on interviews conducted from 2009 to 2015, I argue that the choices made by journalists regarding their sources are affected by neoliberal media policies in a particular way that favours tough‐on‐crime discourses.