No abstract

The government blames local authorities for using anti-social behaviour orders too little. Are they really to be blamed? What are the likely reasons for the very patchy support of the ASBO? The article examines a range of explanations, including that local crime and disorder partnerships, paradoxically having been told by the government to consult and innovate, are adopting a variety of other methods for suppressing anti-social conduct. Patterns of ASBO usage are examined, revealing that it is essentially yet another tool for dealing with persistent young offenders. Legislation for extending the scope and availability of ASBOs is critically appraised.

This article takes a critical look at the ideology and functioning of the parenting order, tracing its political and legislative history and reasons for its geographically varied and largely limited use. It questions the need for mandated parental training which is, anyway, unlikely to prevent offending by children aged over ten years.

The paper is based on an ongoing evaluation of a court‐based diversion scheme for mentally disordered offenders in a busy inner‐London magistrates' court. It begins'with a review of the field, in particular the different decision‐making points at which diversion schemes of this kind might be situated. This is followed by an account of the early experience of the Islington Mentally Disordered Offenders Project which began in the early 1990s. Attention isfocussed on four areas of special need: homelessness; drug misuse; personal violence, and race and ethnicity.