Howard Journal of Crime and Justice最新文献

This article proposes that loved ones supporting prisoners with experience of remand in England and Wales may use Sykes & Matza's (1957) ‘techniques of neutralization’ by proxy. Adopting neutralisations may enable those in prison to be viewed not as those who have harmed, or bad people, but as those who themselves have been harmed. Potential benefits of these techniques are twofold: they help to reject stigma; and explain and enable continued contact. This framework may be a useful basis for work exploring familial contact and support for those affected by imprisonment.

Although by no means a ‘given’, in terms of implementation in practice, good multidisciplinary working and interagency co-operation have always been critically important as goals to be achieved by criminal justice organisations and the other systems with which they interact. Such co-operation is especially important if positive client outcomes are to be maximised. In more recent times, such themes and issues have achieved more prominence, as governments, their ministries and agencies have striven to ensure more ‘joined-up’ working between the criminal justice system and the health and social service sectors, to drive greater effectiveness and efficiency. Consideration of interagency co-operation though, is often set against a backdrop of frustration expressed by various players and stakeholders regarding the perceived and real barriers to productive collaboration.

These barriers are frequently evidenced in so-called ‘siloed’ working and thinking, where individual organisations and agencies – and those working in them – can sometimes appear to be more concerned with preserving and protecting their own interests and resources, as opposed to ‘putting the person/client at the centre of concerns’. To begin with, interagency co-operation can be a challenge even within and among the various criminal justice agencies themselves; however such challenges are often magnified and more difficult to resolve in relation to how the penal system, for example, collaborates with health and social services more widely. And just to add to these challenges, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for those involved to ‘get under the bonnet’ of interagency relationships, so as to better understand and thereby improve them. The present publication goes some way to exploring and explaining these challenges and demystifying many of the issues involved.

As referenced in one of the papers in this book, interagency and multidisciplinary collaboration is ‘a fuzzy concept’ (p.258), which can lead to lack of mutual understanding, language and goals, not to mention a lack of shared analysis of appropriate processes and ways to improve them. This general lack of understanding in common can militate, in conjunction with a range of other factors, against the ready or easy application of such co-operation in practice, even with the best intentions of those involved.

Fieldwork for the studies in question was undertaken in Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom. The 17 chapters are each written by between two and seven co-authors, drawn mostly from a range of academic and research backgrounds, as well as a number of individuals who might describe themselves as ‘practitioners’, representing a total of 35 distinct contributors. In that context, the editors and contributors have achieved a consistency of approach and presentation throughout the volume, which is to be applauded. Following an introductory ‘setting the scene’ chapter by the editors, the substanti

Tata's Sentencing: A social process re-thinking research and policy argues that far from being a mere technical exercise, sentencing is a culturally reflective process, offering emotional resolution and a democratic function to the public – it allows us to discuss what we all view as legitimate levels of punishment.

His central thesis is that sentencing is a social process comprising of three key ideas: it is interpretive, ‘a collaborative process of sense-making’ (p.6), processual, a ‘collaborative activity among a range of professionals signalling meanings to each other’ (p.6), and performative (p.8).

Tata skilfully addresses the supposed conflict between the ‘two giants of sentencing thought’, the legal-rational tradition and the judicial-defensive tradition (p.14). This debate is commonly referred to as the debate between consistency in sentencing (e.g., in the form of guidelines) and judicial discretion.

He draws on scholarship from the 1960s onwards which called for sentencing reforms to structure decision making: Frankel (1972), for example, castigated the lawless state of sentencing in America, calling discretionary sentencing practices a ‘wasteland of law’ (p.16). Highly discretionary practices lead to unjustifiable inequalities at sentencing stage, including the race or ethnicity of the defendant (Hood, 1992).

Opposing legal-rationalism in sentencing is the judicial-defensive tradition, sometimes referred to as individualised sentencing: the idea that each case turns on its own facts, and a sentence should be tailored to the offence but also the offender. Tata cites a volume of academic work that supports the judicial-defensive view. The literature charts a move away from welfare-oriented ideas and individualisation to new risk and managerial logics, and a dehumanised and mechanistic approach to sentencing: Tata calls this the ‘criminological warnings about the drift into a managerialist dystopia’ (p.19).

Tata sets out in his view that the two traditions share the same underlying assumption of liberalism – the belief in the rights of the individual, equality before the law and the consent of the governed. He highlights that discretion only exists because the law permits discretion, drawing on Dworkin's doughnut analogy (p.27): ‘Discretion, like the hole in a doughnut, does not exist except as an area left open by a surrounding belt of restriction …’ (Dworkin, 2013, p.48). Foucault's (1977) work on power is relied upon, wherein he states that power is dispersed more simply than the commands of the state, it is ‘diffused in a range of subtle, capillary, micro-relations’ (p.28).

In abstract discourse, law and discretion are opposite forces, however, Tata argues in Chapter 3 that in practice these concepts are exercised simultaneously. In decrying their helplessness and lamenting the law's harsh results, individual judges are themselves

Most of the scholarship on the ‘punitive turn’ has claimed that there have been two main trends in punishment since the 1970s: the rise of incarceration rates (quantitative dimension) and the worsening of prison conditions (qualitative dimension). Scholars argue that, in parallel with the rise of mass incarceration, there has been a fall of the rehabilitative ideal. In this view, prisons in core countries have basically operated as a warehouse, working towards neutralisation and incapacitation. Both trends are also viewed as reflecting a global convergence of penal policies. The analysis of the Brazilian case challenges this supposed universality. Drawing on official prison data, reports from non-governmental organisations, and secondary data, I argue that mass incarceration has not been accompanied by the same qualitative changes to prisons in ‘Western countries’ and Brazil. First, features of the so-called warehouse prison, such as low levels of prison activities, have always been present in Brazilian prisons, and are not an effect of mass incarceration. Furthermore, the consequences of mass incarceration in Brazilian prisons have, in fact, been ambivalent and, in some cases, may have alleviated inmates’ suffering, rather than intensifying experiences of confinement. Finally, instead of neutralising and controlling criminals, Brazilian prisons under mass incarceration have contributed to the emergence, empowerment, recruitment and organisation of gangs, whose powers now transcend the physical barriers of prison walls.

This article examines homicide cases in which women have been accused of killing alongside another person or persons – an area which until now has not been examined in a Scottish context. The findings presented demonstrate that being accused of killing with another person or persons can have particularly adverse effects for women: claims of domestic abuse are more likely to be rejected and ultimately, existing tendencies to construct women as deviant within the criminal justice system will be exacerbated, resulting in more severe punishment when they are convicted under the doctrine of art and part liability. It is concluded that closer attention must be paid to the criminalisation of women who are accused of offending alongside another person or persons, particularly in Scotland where less attention has been paid to how doctrines of derivative liability operate in practice.

A growing number of organisations and institutions are using sustainability and horticultural interventions in the correctional context for their supposed healing, rehabilitative or therapeutic benefits. This article thematically reviews a range of qualitative, quantitative, case study, meta-analysis, and controlled experimental research studies – to compare what is known about therapeutic horticulture interventions with research on pathways to desistance from crime. It finds the following areas are both evidence-based outcomes in therapeutic horticulture and factors that likely contribute to desistance from crime: identity transformation; education and vocational training; mental health and wellness; social support; and spirituality and religion. Overall, the review will be of interest to practitioners implementing therapeutic horticulture in correctional or community settings, and researchers studying re-entry or resettlement programmes, therapeutic horticulture, and desistance.

Research shows that bystander training has the potential to reduce violence and abuse. It is not clear how and why the training works. We evaluated bystander training to find out what works. We found that interactive techniques, such as group discussions, ‘the video’, and the use of real-world examples were the best ways of delivering the training because they stood out and were remembered by participants. These findings add to the paucity of research on what works in bystander training, and in doing so, raises implications for the design and delivery of future training.

Over recent decades Intelligence-led Policing (ILP) has become a central component of the attempts by New Zealand Police (NZP) to engineer a transformative shift away from ‘reactive’ policing to more ‘proactive’ approaches to crime reduction. ILP appeared to offer an effective response to increasingly complex crime problems, an expanded ‘mission’ and growing public demand, by placing crime intelligence central to decision making. As part of an international study exploring police intelligence, we conducted 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Police Intelligence staff at all levels of the police hierarchy. Our findings highlight five critical barriers to implementing a successful ILP project in New Zealand. We suggest ILP has not delivered its promised effect of catalysing a major reorientation of the modes of frontline policing or its delivery and argue that this is due to the structural resilience of traditional police cultural reluctance to allow long-established practice and procedural norms to be fundamentally changed.

Do men and women perceive cybercrime types differently? This article draws on the distinction between socio-economic and psychosocial cybercrime proposed by Lazarus (2019) to investigate whether men and women hold different perceptions of digital crimes across these two dimensions. Informed by the synergy between feminist theory and the Tripartite Cybercrime Framework (TCF), our survey examined respondents’ differential perceptions of socio-economic cybercrime (online fraud) and psychosocial cybercrime (cyberbullying, revenge porn, cyberstalking, online harassment) among men and women in the United Kingdom. The results revealed that women considered psychosocial cybercrime worse than men. Conversely, we found no differences between men and women with regard to socio-economic cybercrime. The article concludes that psychosocial cybercrimes are more gendered than socio-economic cybercrime, suggesting problems with the meaning of ‘cyber-enabled crimes’, and substantiating the synergy between the TCF and feminist perspectives.

There are books that one wishes they had read earlier on in life, to help shape and mould career paths and perceptions of the world. This important and original book is one of them. It is essential reading for anyone working in the field of criminal justice or interested in learning more about the adverse consequences of imprisonment on individuals and their families – in this case on women, the book's being ‘by, for and about women’ (p.xi). An edited collection of essays by feminist researchers, activists, practitioners and people with experience of prison, this ambitious volume draws on research from the Women, Family, Crime and Justice research network, launched in April 2018, on practice and on the lived experience of criminalised women. Its wide breadth includes a look at such topics as the adverse impact of short sentences; social and cultural practices that weave violence into South Asian women's lives; trauma-specific therapeutic approaches for sex workers; the key role of schools in supporting children of the incarcerated; and feminist research. What exactly does ‘feminist research’ entail? Co-editor and author Lucy Baldwin points to the difficulties in defining the concept historically. A fundamental principle of feminist research, she argues, is reflectivity – constant examination of the context in which knowledge is co-produced, with emphasis on the researcher-researched relationship. In this way, research on criminalised women is informed by women's experiences, works to redress the imbalance of power, and allows researchers’ feelings, actions, motives and vulnerabilities to be part of the equation. Feminist research pays attention to the research process itself so that it promotes and helps implement social change by fostering agency, engagement, visibility and social inclusion of research participants – all seminal considerations given that criminalised women are rarely given a voice.

The book, which aims to be a ‘platform for critical discussions’ (p.4), features pathways forward for developing and implementing effective support policies, reaching a greater number of women with this support and fostering tangible systemic change within the criminal justice system (CJS) itself. It vividly conveys the multiple aspects of what being on the wrong side of the gender gap actually means. It goes beyond the statistical data that highlight the disproportionate sentences given to women for minor offences to lay bare the structural influences and social injustices often underpinning an individual's going into prison. There is emphasis on language and its role in exacerbating stigma (note, for example, the Ministry of Justice's references to ‘female offenders’); on cyclical violence and trauma; and on power paradigms. The latter are examined not only in the CJS but also within academic communities investigating women's experiences with punishment. A series of compelling reflection points at the end of each chapter stir the reader to