Analysis - "Boot camps" for young people who commit serious offending are coming back. The coalition government has promised to pilot "military-style academies" by the middle of the year - despite a wealth of international and New Zealand evidence that boot camps do not reduce reoffending.
It has been encouraging to see this evidence receive extensive media coverage and expert analysis. Less encouraging, however, has been the minister for children's reported rejection of expert advice that the boot camp model is flawed and ineffective.
So, why do we keep returning to interventions that don't work? For boot camps, there are at least three possible explanations.
First, they appeal to politicians who want to appear tough on crime, while also saying they are encouraging rehabilitation options.
Second, boot camps seem to have a strong appeal to common sense: people want to believe structure and military discipline can turn around young people's lives, and this belief outweighs contradicting evidence.
Third, boot camps can take different forms, so evidence of their ineffectiveness can be avoided by claiming, as the minister has, that improvements will be made this time.
This seems unlikely, however, when the core features that characterise boot camps - strong discipline in particular - are a main reason they don't work. To understand why, we need to look at the psychology of punishment and behaviour change.
Fear has always worked to motivate conservative voters. Fear of youth criminals coupled with some simple, plausible sounding wrong "solution" is electorial gold for venal politicians and this three headed beast is as venal as they come