Howard Journal of Crime and Justice最新文献

The ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) is largely a response to a stream of national media scandals that exposed the illegal and unethical behaviour of undercover police officers in two secretive units. The testimony of those who were the targets of undercover operations has further exposed the human costs stemming from the personalised and highly invasive surveillance undertaken by anonymous state agents. In this article, we reflect upon the existing research on covert policing and identify new areas for conceptual and methodological engagement, with a view to better understanding the harms that these secretive operations can generate. Attending to the inherent and inescapable intimacy of covert policing offers a much-needed opportunity to explore the effects of a unique state practice that can radically alter the lives of individual surveillance subjects, and which tests our conventional understandings of the legitimacy and limits of force, coercion and police power.

I am a criminology lecturer, and I have a particular interest in the criminal courts. It is, therefore, no surprise that I found Townend and Welsh's book an important and fascinating read. As set out in the opening chapter, the book is ‘about the principle and practice of open justice in criminal courts in what is often characterised as the “digital age”’ (p.1). Attention is on how court hearings and information are made publicly accessible in the 21st century. The authors specifically focus on the magistrates’ courts due to these courts being ‘under interrogated as a part of open justice’ (p.4). This is of importance given that research tends to focus on the Crown Court, despite the majority of cases being heard in the summary courts.

Throughout the book, when discussing matters relating to open justice and the magistrates’ courts, the authors draw upon their own empirical data – specifically courtroom observational data – and, also, secondary data. This includes studies done by academics, third sector organisations, and government bodies. The methodology is discussed in Chapter 1, but the methods section is short and not particularly detailed. This is, however, acknowledged and a reason for this is given – due to there being insufficent space. Furthermore, the reader is informed that they can get in touch with the authors to request more information if they wish. The structure of the book is also set out in the introductory chapter, and an overview of the remaining chapters is provided, which will now be discussed.

Chapter 2 explores the history of open justice and accountability in the criminal courts in England and Wales. A discussion about these principles is of value given that these terms are often referred to within criminal justice literature, but their history, how they are defined and why they are of importance are not always focused upon. The main theoretical rationales for the contemporary approach to open justice are considered, including the shaming and deterrence value of it, and critiques of these rationales are provided. In response, the main argument of the book is put forward: the authors suggest ‘a shift in emphasis, moving away from an account of publicity in criminal proceedings as important for shaming and/or deterrence purposes, to one that considers the broader importance of making the justice system scrutable and of its educational value in the widest sense’ (p.20).

The authors in Chapter 3 then go on to talk about the developments that have occurred in relation to the criminal courts, and the consequences of these changes on accountability and open justice. Developments discussed include the increased use of virtual courts, and the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure for minor offences and the automatic online conviction process. It is recognised that although there are benefits associated with the reforms that have occurred, there are also negatives which undermine fairness, participation

The book sets out its overall aim in the acknowledgements section, namely that the authors hope that it advances knowledge that ‘rights and research are key to advancing the progressive reform of youth justice internationally’ (p.vi). The authors are established experts in the field of international children's rights and set about to consider a range of progressive youth justice international research through the lens of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and its associated reports, comments and related treaties. The authors acknowledge that the international standards offer a wealth of detail to ‘respect, protect and fulfil the rights of children in conflict with the law’ (p.1), while at the same time a wealth of knowledge has been developed from research about this group of children, and their pathways into, through, and out of, justice systems. However, an important gap is identified which is the study of how these two bodies of knowledge overlap and relate to one another. This book seeks to begin to plug this gap by ‘bring[ing] together the best research on children in conflict with the law, mapping it against international children's rights standards’ (p.1).

I found the book to be extremely helpful in, first, highlighting how research advances the case for youth justice systems and reform to be firmly rooted in the international rights frameworks. However, I found that the book also sought to make the case that youth justice researchers should be seeking to ground and position their own research within the children's rights framework much more widely than is currently the case. I found, as a youth justice researcher, the argument to be incredibly persuasive and will use the book as a reference tool when both designing future research and also teaching my students.

Once the context and aims of the book are established, Chapter 2 then very helpfully and succinctly summarises the numerous standards and instruments related to children in the justice system, and outlines key features of a rights-based framework. I found this chapter to be extremely useful as the rights-based literature and landscape can often be complex and difficult to navigate. It first runs through some of the key principles of the UNCRC and then considers how they can be applied to children in trouble with the law. The chapter concludes by introducing the remaining structure of the book – namely, how a rights-based framework can be implemented at different stages of the justice system: prevention (Chapter 3); diversion and justice (Chapter 4); and reintegration (Chapter 5).

Chapter 3 considers child development and their experiences prior to entering criminal justice systems. An exploration of the universal rights that all children should enjoy in early childhood sets the scene for considering how some children are denied these rights, and this sets them on a pathway into criminalisation. The authors specifically focus on ov

Literature regarding trans and gender diverse (TGD) prisoners’ experiences of prison custody is limited. Reviewing international literature enables a better understanding of these experiences and how effectively TGD policies are implemented. This systematic review employed PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines to enhance transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-methods research. Seventeen papers were included and through meta-ethnographic synthesis three overarching themes emerged: structural, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Recommendations include reducing reliance on survival strategies by TGD prisoners through implementation of policies which meet TGD prisoners’ needs and to enabling better informed decision making regarding housing. Further research into lived experiences would allow for a better understanding of what currently works, how services could be improved, and identify potential training needs.

To what extent are accused's backgrounds within the criminal justice system considered during the sentencing process, and if they are, how do judges make sense of them? To better understand this aspect of the sentencing process, this article examines data from interviews with, and observations of, 16 Sheriffs in 14 different Scottish Sheriff Courts. The accused persons’ backgrounds were indeed considered during the sentencing process. However, how Sheriffs constructed their role as sentencers seemed to directly affect how they acknowledged and took them into account.

In this article we sketch a vision that might guide academic and third sector collaboration. We do so by drawing on a project that involved collaboration with a range of stakeholders, in order to stimulate ongoing discussion about how academics and the third sector might work together to seek positive change. Our findings show that there are keenly felt challenges, but also a sense of resilient optimism. A key finding among our stakeholders was a sense that there is an absence of an overarching shared vision, which was experienced by many of our respondents as consequential. Therefore, in the spirit of constructive provocation we set out such a vision, which was collaboratively developed with our respondents: opening a dialogue, rather than providing a conclusive position.

Using an experimental vignette design, the study investigates the effects of criminal records on the hiring decisions of a convenience sample of 221 human resource (HR) managers in Ghana. The HR managers were randomly assigned to read one of four vignettes depicting job seekers of different genders and criminal records: male with and without criminal record, female with and without criminal record. The evidence shows that a criminal record reduces employment opportunities for female offenders but not for their male counterparts. Additionally, HR managers are willing to offer interviews to job applicants, irrespective of their criminal records, if they expect other managers to hire ex-convicts. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Criminologists could be forgiven for failing to notice a book entitled Administrative law in action. The subtitle, Immigration administration, begins to indicate its relevance. This book engages in a detailed examination of the United Kingdom's immigration department (the Home Office). In so doing, it speaks to issues of immigration and border control that have been explored with increasing depth and precision, and, indeed, moral urgency, by those working within the criminological field (see, e.g., Aliverti, 2021; Bhatia & Canning, 2021; Pickering, Bosworth & Franko, 2017).

As a public law scholar based in England, Thomas's primary goal is to approach questions of administrative law in a manner that ‘gets under the surface’ (p.31): one which recognises the importance of abstract questions relating to judicial review, but which engages with the ‘basic nuts and bolts of how administrative systems operate in practice and develop over time’ (p.3). In this vein, he examines matters including how the Home Office is organised in relation to immigration, operative administrative rules and guidance, caseworking, redress and legal challenges, immigration enforcement and the role of judicial review. He devotes particular attention to the Hostile Environment Policy and Windrush.

Thomas demonstrates that ‘the organisational competence of the immigration department is significantly constrained in various ways’ (p.260). Its policymaking has been flawed, its rules unnecessarily complex, the quality of casework highly variable. Thomas argues therefore that ‘people who interact with the department experience an enormous amount of bureaucratic oppression that is often beyond the scope of any effective form of judicial or other means of redress’ (p.261).

That said, Thomas urges the reader not to view the situation, despite the problems being ‘undoubtedly serious and deep-seated’ (p.261), as being a complete catastrophe. He reminds us that much of the work is done tolerably well: most immigration applications are granted, most decisions are made within customer services standards, and most individuals (who take the time to respond) indicate in official surveys that they were satisfied with relevant processes (p.260). Thomas also points out that many of the underlying problems are common complaints that have been made against government for many years now, across a wide range of policy areas: lack of resources, clashes of internal organisational cultures, lack of sufficient support and training for staff, and poor quality control of work ‘on the ground’ (pp.262–263).

For Thomas, this is primarily to be understood as a question of good governance. He cites approvingly the Windrush review's position that ‘ministers and senior officials must provide staff with a clear understanding of what effective public administration looks like by establishing an organisational culture and profess

To be found guilty of an offence is to be marked not just as a wrongdoer, but an ‘offender’. To be found guilty of a sexual offence is to be doubly marked – to become the worst of the worst: a ‘sex offender’. In this short book, Ievins reports an ethnography of life in HMP Stafford – an English Category C prison devoted exclusively to incarcerating sex offenders.

The stains of imprisonment is deeply concerned with questions of truth, identity and communication. What is the nature of truth in the aftermath of (allegations of and/or convictions for) serious violence, both in the context of penal institutions and processes and of academic research into them? How do those ‘stained’ with the label of ‘sex offender’ come to terms with this identity, especially within a prison environment characterised as one specifically for sex offenders? How do the realities of lived experiences in a complex and (historically, institutionally and socially) contingent prison setting impact upon the meanings (intentional or otherwise) communicated by criminal sentences to penal subjects? Not least, how do researchers engage authentically with participants in such circumstances, letting them tell their stories and looking for the human being behind the crime, without denying or obscuring the experiences of survivors of sexual violence?

Ievins lays out this complex, thought-provoking, and empathetic enquiry in eight chapters. Chapter 1 places the book in a wider context of feminist and other discourses about the validity of state punishment, in general and in the context of sexual offending. Chapter 2 discusses the idea that punishment serves the purpose of moral communication and identifies a central tension in academic criminology, to which her book is addressed. On the one hand, penal theorists speak abstractly about what punishment should do without thinking about how institutions actually work in practice. On the other, prison sociologists typically insulate themselves from wider theoretical and normative contexts. Both sets of scholars, Ievins forcefully argues, therefore separate themselves from a full understanding of prisons and wider criminal justice and need to interface with each other's work to produce meaningful and impactful discussions of penal phenomena. Chapter 2 also sets up the empirical study, with a particular focus on HMP Stafford as the research site, and provides a brief methodological note, including a valuable reflection on the challenges of doing research in a sex offenders’ prison as a young female criminologist.

Chapters 3 through 7 discuss different aspects of the empirical data generated by Ievins's ethnography. Chapter 3 considers three structural factors impacting on participants’ understanding of their punishment, which affected the messages they perceived as being communicated by their punishment. These were: the legal framework by which offenders were officially designated ‘sex offenders’; the

Prisoner incompatibility is a challenge for correctional officers (COs), as incompatible people in prison are more likely to engage in negative interactions, participate in altercations, cause harm to each other and create tension on a unit. Through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 28 COs employed in Atlantic Canada, we explore how incompatibility among incarcerated people shapes how incarcerated people are managed and perceived by COs. Engaging the prison design literature, we further examine the kinds of spatial designs and protocols that contribute to, or mitigate, incompatibility. We find that COs describe a complex prison hierarchy that, while being laced with challenges beyond the control of COs, could nevertheless be effectively mitigated through architectural transformation or policy reforms. We highlight the need to consider how prison culture informs and is interpolated through spatial configurations of correctional institutions and how these social and spatial dynamics shape interactions between prisoners.