The article focuses on reparations, as ordered by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against a convicted individual. It has long been orthodoxy that such measures fulfil solely compensatory objectives, for they lack any punitive intent. This article offers a rival account. An analysis of the respective regulatory and contextual framework reveals that, by design, reparations are allowed to pursue compensatory and punitive goals equally. An analysis of the reparations orders themselves affirms that, in practice, the ICC utilizes reparations as a means to accomplish compensatory and punitive objectives both. It is maintained that reparations orders are both remedial and punitive in nature. Ignoring this reality has a negative impact on individual prerogatives, and contradicts fundamental sentencing ideals of international criminal justice. It follows that the current reparations order regime should be reformed. The ICC should either explicitly acknowledge reparations as punishment, or detach them from criminal proceedings altogether.

The “no means no” model has been applied in Germany since November 10, 2016. Its introduction has considerably extended the scope of criminalized forms of sexual interaction. This Article examines the criminal policy discourse that gave rise to it and the question of whether the new provisions have led to the changes in the practices of criminal prosecution proclaimed in advance. The results will be critically assessed. The new legislation relating to sexual offenses was also shaped on the initiative of groups perceiving themselves as emancipatory, and in the understanding of these groups, the “no means no” provision acts as “progressive” criminalization. Yet, aside from the fact that the associated expectations have hardly been met as of yet, this movement would have to resolve an essential question: Is penal law compatible with a “progressive” social policy they claim to stand for at all, and if so, what conditions does it have to meet?

While opinions on what should be done with youth offenders vary from person to person, perceived levels of safety and fear of crime have been linked to more punitive attitudes towards crime and punishment. Qualitative methods were employed to explore the attitudes and opinions of members of the New Zealand public with varying levels of community safety in respect to the treatment of youth offenders. Results indicate those who identified as lowest in levels of safety were more punitive in their opinions, though they also expressed a firm desire for progressive treatment options such as rehabilitation and taking preventative action. Those who felt the safest in their community were less likely to be punitive in their opinions towards youth offenders.