No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
64. The Ends of Harm, p 2.
65. Ibid, p 22.
66. Ibid, p 59.
67. Ibid, p 73.
68. Ibid, p 77.
69. Ibid, p 81.
70. Ibid, p 89.
71. Ibid, p 114.
72. Ibid, p 124.
73. Ibid, p 138.
74. Ibid, p 129.
75. Ibid, p 131.
76. Ibid, p 151.
77. Ibid, p 164.
78. Ibid, p 170.
79. Ibid, p 189.
80. Ibid, p 191.
81. Ibid, p 199.
82. Ibid, p 212.
83. Ibid, p 232.
84. Ibid, p 255.
85. Ibid, p 256.
86. Ibid, p 276.
87. Ibid, pp 275–276.
88. Ibid, p 280; emphasis in original.
89. Ibid, p 114; emphasis in original.
90. Pratt, T. et al ‘The empirical status of deterrence theory: a meta-analysis’ in Cullen, F, Wright, J and Blevins, K (eds) Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2006)Google Scholar.
91. See, eg, Tunnell, K Choosing Crime: The Criminal Calculus of Property Offenders (Chicago, IL: Nelsen-Hall, 1992)Google Scholar.
92. The Ends of Harm, above n 64, p 65.
93. Ibid, p 3.
94. Kemshall, H. ‘Risks, rights and justice: understanding and responding to youth risk’ (2008) 8 Youth Justice 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95. The Ends of Harm, above n 64, p 345.
96. Ibid, p 360.
97. Maruna, S Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives (Washington, DC: APA, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
98. See, eg, McNeill, F ‘a desistance paradigm for offender management’ (2006) 6 Criminology and Criminal Justice 39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.