Imprisonment and internment: Comparing penal facilities North and South

Recent references to the ‘warehouse prison’ in the United States and the prisión-depósito in Latin America seem to indicate that penal confinement in the western hemisphere has converged on a similar model. However, this article suggests otherwise. It contrasts penal facilities in North America and Latin America in terms of six interrelated aspects: regimentation; surveillance; isolation; supervision; accountability; and formalization. Quantitatively, control in North American penal facilities is assiduous (unceasing, persistent and intrusive), while in Latin America it is perfunctory (sporadic, indifferent and cursory). Qualitatively, North American penal facilities produce imprisonment (which enacts penal intervention through confinement), while in Latin America they produce internment (which enacts penal intervention through release). Closely entwined with this qualitative difference are distinct practices of judicial involvement in sentencing and penal supervision. Those practices, and the cultural and political factors that underpin them, represent an interesting starting point for the explanation of the contrasting nature of imprisonment and internment

Maternal and neonatal factors related to prematurity

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To identify maternal and neonatal factors associated with prematurity in the municipality of Porto Alegre. METHOD This was a population-based case-control study. The cases were newborns under 37 weeks of gestation and the controls were newborns over 37 weeks. The data came from the records of 19,457 births in the city of Porto Alegre in the year 2012 from the Information System on Live Births of the Municipal Health Department. The analysis was carried outand adjusted by a Logistic Regression according to a hierarchical model. The variables studied were allocated into three hierarchy levels: sociodemographic variables; reproductive history; and gestational and birth factors. RESULTS There were 767 cases allocated and 1,534 controls in a design of a case for two controls (1:2) by simple randomization. In the final model, a statistically significant association was found for prematurity for the following variables: mother's age under 19 years old (OR=1.32; CI 95%: 1.02-1.71) or over 34 years old (OR=1.39; CI 95%: 1.12-1.72); inadequate maternal schooling for age (OR=2.11; CI 95%: 1.22-3.65); multiple pregnancies (OR=1.14; CI 95%: 1.01-1.29); C-section (OR=1.15; CI 95%: 1.03-1.29); birth weights under 2,500g (OR=4.04; CI 95%: 3.64-4.49); Apgar score at five minutes between zero and three (OR=1.47; CI 95%: 1.12-1.91); and inadequate prenatal care (OR=1.18; CI 95%: 1.02-1.36). CONCLUSION The present study showed the most immediate consequence of prematurity for newborns by evidencing its association with worse Apgar scores and low birth weight. The following factors were also shown as possible more distal determinants of prematurity: mother's age; inadequate maternal education; multiple gestation; inadequate prenatal care; and C-section

Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning: Targeted Benefits vs. Co-Benefits or Costs?

There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These ‘marginal’ values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan's cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuitive results for conservation: conservation-compatible services (carbon, angling) were positively correlated with each other and biodiversity, whereas the conservation-incompatible service (timber) was negatively correlated with all other networks. Our findings suggest that including ecosystem services within a conservation plan may be most cost-effective when they are represented as substitutable co-benefits/costs, rather than as targeted benefits. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, we may be able to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower cost and with greater co-benefits

Police Culture and Police Leadership

Police leadership is a key focus for police practitioners and academics. However, little attention has been paid to the relationship between police leadership and police culture. In a policing field where, in rhetorical terms, leadership is presented as a means of limiting the damage caused by occupational culture, it is important for commentary to provide a critical focus upon the relationship between these two complex concepts. This chapter provides, by drawing on international policing literature and contexts, a conceptual and critical account of three main issues. First, whether or not police leaders can be conceptualized as having a particular cultural orientation. Second, by explaining the inherent conceptual tensions in the relationship. Finally, it explores the assumption that police culture represents a barrier to police leadership

Justice-Sector and Human Rights Reform under the Cardoso Government.

NoThe federal government under Cardoso was not ideologically committed to the adoption of specific "neoliberal" policies in the field of crime control and criminal justice through the reform of the courts, the police, and the prison system. Its failure to curtail institutionally driven human rights violations resulted from a more diffuse "environmental" effect of neoliberalism whereby fiscal management concerns monopolized the government's economic and political capital and from structural constraints on domestic political and governance configurations such as federalism and the character of the Ministry of Justice. Penal policy in Brazil, as elsewhere, was incoherent and volatile because of the confluence of two distinct political ideologies, economic neoliberalism and social neoconservatism, with the federal government pursuing strategies of delegation and denial. Policy transfer and norm convergence were affected positively by the international human rights regime and its domestic allies and negatively by local moral conservatives and producer groups acting as policy blockers rather than entrepreneurs