Community justice in Scotland – the system of agencies that deliver community punishments and related services – is being restructured for the second time in a decade. The current system of administration by regional Community Justice Authorities (CJAs) will be replaced by a two-tier model, with local planning passing to Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) and a new national body providing leadership for the sector. This thesis, the only empirical study of the restructuring, draws on interviews with politicians and practitioners to analyse the policy, its historical background and the ways in which – without directly affecting practice – it connects to major questions about Scottish politics and penal policy. Using the theoretical concept of the ‘penal field’, the thesis discusses the effects on community justice of struggle and compromise between Scottish local and national government. The birth of CJAs from this compromise caused them to be structurally flawed, but they were nonetheless not without certain achievements. Community justice is also considered in relation to historical narratives of a distinctive Scottish penal identity, and efforts to reaffirm it by reorienting the justice system towards community penalties rather than prison. Recent scholarship which highlights the role of local democratic structures in penal policy informs an analysis of CPPs (whose limited success has produced concern about their ability to fulfil justice responsibilities) and the relationship between their development (including the recent Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act) and the community justice redesign; the thesis argues that the community justice and community empowerment agendas are being allowed to converge but not meet. The new system, it is argued, is another structurally flawed compromise. The proliferation of agencies will likely hinder partnership working, while the new national body will have little power to fulfil some difficult and complex responsibilities around legitimacy and accountability. The policy will disrupt lines of communication despite efforts to smooth the transition, and the length of its development has already caused disruption. The restructuring, it is further argued, is insufficient to fulfil a deeply felt need for major reorientation of Scotland’s penal field.

Cette thèse prend pour objet la place des savoirs neuroscientifiques sur le cerveau adolescent dans les mutations contemporaines du champ de la justice des mineurs aux États-Unis. Plus spécifiquement, elle analyse les logiques sociohistoriques ayant conduit la théorie de l’immaturité cérébrale des adolescents à jouer un rôle clé dans trois arrêts de la Cour Suprême qui, entre 2005 et 2012, ont rendu la peine de mort et la prison à vie inconstitutionnelles pour les délinquants mineurs. Située au croisement de la sociologie des sciences et de la sociologie du champ pénal, cette recherche propose de saisir ce « triptyque juridique » à la lumière de l’histoire longue du traitement pénal des mineurs aux États-Unis. Elle analyse les débats contemporains entourant l’âge de la majorité pénale à l’aune des luttes symboliques qui se sont historiquement nouées autour de la définition du « problème » de la délinquance juvénile. Suivant un regard sociohistorique, cette thèse retrace les oppositions et les alliances entre scientifiques, fondations philanthropiques, sociétés savantes, agences gouvernementales, élus politiques et acteurs juridiques qui ont façonné la trajectoire du champ de la justice des mineurs états-unienne. Cette recherche s’intéresse particulièrement au « travail de manipulation symbolique » (Bourdieu, 2001) des « nouveaux réformateurs », une alliance hétérogène d’agents appartenant à la classe dominante, qui au tournant du 21e siècle ont construit et diffusé un nouveau discours social situant les causes de la délinquance juvénile dans le cerveau des adolescents. Elle formule une critique des fondements épistémologiques et des usages politiques de ce discours, et rend compte des rapports de pouvoir, notamment d’âge, de classe et de race, qu’il participe à renforcer, malgré les ambitions progressistes de ses promoteurs. Les analyses présentées dans cette recherche s’appuient sur un matériau hétéroclite combinant des archives judiciaires, des articles scientifiques, de la littérature grise et 37 entretiens semi-directifs réalisés auprès de chercheurs, de juges, de membres de fondations philanthropiques, d’associations militantes et d’agences gouvernementales. L’hétérogénéité de ce matériau offre un moyen de suivre les déplacements du discours de l’immaturité du laboratoire vers le tribunal ou du Congrès des États-Unis vers les institutions correctionnelles. Elle permet de rendre raison des logiques spécifiques de champ qui génèrent l’action de ces agents, ainsi que des logiques transversales qui les conduisent à s’allier pour agir politiquement afin de « sauver » les jeunes délinquants. / This dissertation investigates the role of neuroscientific knowledge about the adolescent brain in the contemporary mutations of the field of juvenile justice in the United States. More specifically, it analyzes the socio-historical dynamics whereby the theory of adolescent brain immaturity came to play a key role in three Supreme Court rulings which, between 2005 and 2012, made the death penalty and life imprisonment unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. Located at the intersection of the sociology of science and the sociology of the penal field, this dissertation examines this “legal triptych” in light of the history of the juvenile justice system in the United States. I argue that the contemporary debates surrounding the age of criminal responsibility are the latest manifestation of the symbolic struggles that various fractions of the dominant class have historically waged around the definition of the “problem” of juvenile delinquency. Following a socio-historical perspective, this dissertation traces the oppositions and alliances between scientists, philanthropic foundations, learned societies, government agencies, elected politicians, and legal actors who have shaped the trajectory of the field of juvenile justice in the U. S. One key focus of the dissertation is to examine the “work of symbolic manipulation” (Bourdieu, 2001) of the “new reformers”, an heterogenous alliance of agents from the dominant class who, at the turn of the 21st century, constructed and disseminated a new social discourse locating the causes of juvenile delinquency in the brain of adolescents. To address this focus, I formulate a critique of the epistemological foundations and political uses of this discourse. I give an account of the power relations, notably of age, class and race, that this discourse of immaturity helps to reinforce, despite the progressive ambitions of its promoters. The analyses presented in this dissertation are based on a diversified material combining judicial archives, scientific articles, grey literature and 37 semi-structured interviews conducted with scholars, judges, members of philanthropic foundations, of activist groups and of government agencies. The heterogeneity of this material provides the means to track how the discourse of immaturity shifts from the laboratory to the courtroom or from the U.S. Congress to correctional institutions. It allows me to account for the specific field logics that generate the action of these agents, as well as the cross-cutting logics that lead them to ally themselves to act politically in order to “save” juvenile offenders.