The Shifting Sands of Punishment in China in the Era of “Harmonious Society”

This article about the politics of punishment in China today follows some of the political machinations involved in the development of a new policy called “Balancing Leniency and Severity.” It treats this new policy as an exemplar of how politics works in the Hu Jintao era to change the way crimes are addressed in judicial decision making. This paper underscores the important ways in which political ideology informs criminal justice policy and practice in China. It examines a number of stages of development within the last decade during which Balancing Leniency and Severity has emerged as a foundational criminal justice policy.     

Criminal justice policy and the psychology of peacemaking

Psychology which once was a primary influence on the development of criminal justice policy has, in recent decades, lost much of its ability to inform how laws and policies are made that concern punishment and social control. The reason for psychology's loss of inluence can be traced to the war on crime political rhetoric adopted by politicians and criminal justice administrators. This paper argues that an emerging peacemaking perspective in the criminal justice system allows the discipline of psychology to once again inform the discourse on criminal justice policy. Issues such as drug abuse, gun control, and capital punishment are appropriate subjects for a psychological perspective in the national debate on criminal justice policy.     

New Labour – New Penology? Punitive Rhetoric and the Limits of Managerialism in Criminal Justice Policy

This paper argues that New Labour's 'tough' stance on law and order has given rise to a criminal justice policy which is based on fundamental contradictions and which involves a substantial retreat from traditional socialist thinking on crime. The continuation of a populist punitive approach ensures the predominance in policy making of a 'criminology of the other' which, in turn, sustains a 'punishment deficit' which fuels public expectations that crime can be controlled effectively by a policy of deterrence through punishment. This populist punitiveness, it is argued, is at odds with another strand of government penal policy, the attempt to secure greater efficiencies and economies by an intensification of managerialism throughout the criminal justice system.     

The Politics of Racial Disparity Reform: Racial Inequality and Criminal Justice Policymaking in the States

Racial inequalities in criminal justice are pressing problems for policymakers. Prior literature suggests elected officials promulgate punitive, racially disparate criminal justice policies due to partisanship and racial fears, but scholarship has yet to explain how and why elected officials address racial problems in criminal processing. This article introduces the framework of racial disparity reform policymaking. A racial disparity reform is a policy that seeks to reduce distinctions in criminal justice institutions’ treatment of racial groups. Elected officials pursue these policies due to ideological beliefs in civil rights ideals and political interests in appearing to solve social problems. Using an original database of policy enactments, this article first presents the distribution and types of reform measures adopted by elected officials in all 50 states between 1998 and 2011. It then examines social and political explanations for when state legislatures and executives adopt racial disparity reforms. Policy enactment is predicted by worsening problems of racial disproportion in criminal processing, Democratic control of elected branches, and the absence of judicial efforts to improve racial fairness within a state’s criminal justice system. Similar dynamics encourage the development of different measures types within policies. Such ideological and problem-solving explanations for racial disparity reform show a potential for elected officials to forge more racially just criminal justice practices.     

新自由主义对美英国家刑事法制的影响及反思

从一国或地区的政治经济体制来理解其刑事法制,可以以相对宏观的视角把握其刑事法制脉络。美国刑事法制自20世纪70年代以来发生了深刻变化,从刑事法制基本观念到具体实践都渗透强烈的报应主义色彩,而隐藏其后则是新自由主义思潮。美国刑事法制的转变也影响着英国等国家。对这一思潮进行研究,一方面可以对这些国家刑事法制过去半个世纪发展脉络进行整体把握,另一方面也为分析研究这些国家刑事法制提供了一个更具批判性的视角。     

Improving criminal justice through better decision making: Lessons from the medical system

Against a backdrop of unprecedented growth in the criminal justice system stand calls for increased government accountability, yet substantial gaps between ideal and actual practice remain. Many observers have pointed to the problem and some of its causes and solutions, including the need for performance monitoring and evidence-based practices. Less attention has been paid to how decision-making errors influence effective criminal justice practice. This article draws on examples from medicine, where decision making has been examined in more depth, and applies them to criminal justice. Its goals are to identify the types of decision-making errors that can undermine effective practice and policy in the criminal justice system, illustrate how systemic factors influence everyday decision making, and draw attention to the benefits of decision making-focused monitoring and assessment. The article concludes by discussing the implications for performance monitoring and improving the criminal justice system.     

我国反腐败刑事立法之犯罪化与轻刑化问题研究

在国际刑事法律公约的订立和各国刑事立法过程中，犯罪化和非犯罪化一直是刑事政策和刑事立法的基本问题。腐败行为犯罪化的意义还在于，随着国际和国内反腐败斗争的不断深入，对公职人员的廉洁性、廉政性的要求越来越高，不廉洁和不廉政行为范围更加扩大，那些原来属于职业道德规范规制的对象，随着人们对这些腐败行为的犯罪化的立法要求和呼声的高涨，这些行为便有可能上升为刑事法律规制的对象。而轻刑化是指对于犯罪的处罚倾向于用较轻的刑罚取代较重刑罚处罚的刑：事政策措施，它表现为用较轻的刑种（如监禁或有期徒刑）取代较重的刑种（如死刑或无期徒刑），或者在同一刑种中用较轻的处罚（如3年以下轻的刑期）取代较重的处罚（如10年以上重的刑期），甚至包括本应用剥夺自由的刑罚取而代之用剥夺财产刑（如没收财产或罚金）和资格刑（如剥夺政治权利）的刑罚措施惩治腐败犯罪。在国际上，轻刑化作为国际刑事立法和司法的趋势，正日益引起各国的重视。从表面上看，犯罪化和轻刑化是两种的对立的刑事政策，但实际上，这两者是可以兼容并蓄的。因此，对腐败犯罪行为的犯罪化与对该行为在处罚上的轻刑化并不矛盾，两者在理论与实践上都可以达到高度的统一。     

Long economic cycles and the criminal justice system in the U.S.

Long cycles in capitalist development have been utilized as an analytical tool for political economic theory¹ and to explain major shifts in the social structure within capitalist political economies.² However, the potential impact that these massive changes in the political economy have on the historical development of criminal justice institutions and policies is an area not addressed within the literature. This article explores the relationship between long cycles of capitalist development and the historical formation of criminal justice policy in the United States.Earlier versions of this paper were presented at meetings of the American Society of Criminology (1984, 1986) and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (1986).     

State Politics and the Right to Counsel: A Comparative Analysis

One of the most significant recent developments in the study of crime and justice is the emergence of theoretical explanations for the dramatic changes in criminal justice policy over the past few decades. These theoretical accounts address not only highly visible developments, such as the meteoric rise in incarceration rates, but also less-conspicuous shifts in due process and civil liberties, and they do so by attributing more-repressive policies to the emergence of a political culture that has substantially redefined crime and justice. This article focuses on an important due process issue, the legal representation of indigent defendants in criminal courts. We describe the state of indigent defense policy, particularly structure and funding, across the states in 2002, and analyze variation on two dimensions where states may exercise discretion: the extent to which states assume responsibility for funding services (rather than relying on local governments), and the generosity with which these programs are funded overall. We test hypotheses that link funding for services with the ideology of state political leadership, public values about tolerance and race relations, and states' public welfare policy climates. We find little support for the prediction that a welfare climate shapes more progressive indigent defense policies. However, the results suggest that the racial threat hypothesis helps account for spending on indigent defense, and that Republican control of the statehouse results in the perpetuation of local responsibility for program funding. Normative literature on indigent defense suggests that the patterns we observe may have important consequences for the quality of indigent defense services across states. Further, the findings reported here suggest that the politics of the punitive turn, as it has played out across the states, may be responsible not only for shifts in crime control policy, but for due process policy as well.     

Italian criminal trials: Lost in transition? Differing degrees of criminal justice convergence in Italy and Australia

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure underwent extraordinary reform in 1988, from an established inquisitorial system to incorporate key elements of adversarialism. This reform sought to create greater separation of powers and efficiency of the trial system. Two decades on, Italian criminal trials continue to be overly protracted, and struggle with maintaining independence of the judiciary (particularly a distinct separation from the prosecutorial arm). This paper primarily examines the philosophical foundations of inquisitorial and adversarial systems, and theories of the policy making process. It develops a theoretical framework for understanding the transformation of the Italian trial system, and the challenges that have resulted from combining two divergent approaches to criminal justice. Various important lessons are drawn for criminal justice community, as many jurisdictions are engaging in similar convergence of these systems as a result of global influence and change.     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

论宽严相济刑事政策的定位

宽严相济的刑事政策是惩办与宽大相结合刑事政策的继承和发展。刑事政策根据其指导功能的不同,可分为刑事立法政策、刑事司法政策、刑事执行政策。宽严相济对司法领域而言,可以说是刑事司法政策;但它也指导刑事立法、刑事执行,因而也是刑事立法政策、刑事执行政策。刑事政策根据其所处层次的不同,可分为基本刑事政策和具体刑事政策。宽严相济是基本刑事政策,"严打"、"少杀、慎杀"等是具体刑事政策,后者都是前者的组成部分。说宽严相济是刑事司法政策,并不否定宽严相济是基本刑事政策。     

How Is Criminal Justice Related to the Rest of Justice?

Are principles of criminal justice derived from a broader conception of justice, or does criminal justice involve some of its own distinctive principles such that it is not—for example—an aspect of distributive justice? Examining considerations regarding luck and desert provides an illuminating approach to this issue. The notion of desert has largely been excised from a great deal of recent political theorizing, and in particular, it has been eliminated from many influential conceptions of distributive justice. It is widely held that the pervasiveness of luck renders desert inappropriate to contexts of distributive justice, and incompatible with the freedom and equality of persons in a just political community. Should considerations of desert also have a minimal role in criminal justice—where they seem to still be important? Are considerations of desert in the context of criminal justice consistent with persons being free and equal participants in a just political community? How are principles of criminal justice related to principles of distributive justice and political justice in an overall just society? Many scholars agree that criminal justice presupposes an adequately just society. Still, that leaves open just how criminal justice relates to justice overall. That is the present topic.     

The availability,accessibility, and level of computerization of criminal justice data: An interstate comparison

As a result of the decentralized system of American criminal justice, state information systems have developed in a fragmented manner. Thus, the availability of justice data, which is one product of these systems, varies greatly between states. Although these disparities are widely acknowledged, very little information exists on the extent of the disparities. This article compares data availability across states as well as the level of computerization of these data, and the facility with which criminal justice agencies share the data with other state justice agencies. These variables are important because thorough data availability, a high level of computerization, and a willingness to share existing data can increase the quality and timeliness of criminal justice policy making.     

Interest groups in the criminal justice process

This article reviews recent research about interest groups in criminal justice policy making and considers the state of knowledge in this area. Portions of major studies by Downs, Berk et al., and Berk and Rossi are discussed. These studies came to varying conclusions about the nature and importance of interest group influence. Three points are suggested by the research described: (1) groups composed of criminal justice professionals (law enforcement personnel, corrections officials, attorneys) are more influential than those with social service or reform concerns, (2) particular social, cultural, and economic conditions in the various states affect interest group structure, power, and goals, (3) criminal justice legislation is generally enacted on a consensual basis without open conflicts in state legislatures and without major public involvement in the process. Some evidence that would tend to modify these conclusions is also presented. Avenues of future research concern are suggested and a framework for further analysis of interest groups in the politics of criminal justice is proposed.     

公众认同、政治抉择与死刑控制

限制和废除死刑已经成为席卷全球的当代刑事政策运动与刑罚改革潮流。死刑的存废、去留 ,并不取决于其自身无法辩明的正义性 (或非正义性 )以及无法证实或证伪的威慑性。它在根本上是一个受集体意识的公众认同以及政治领袖的政治意志左右的政策选择问题。集体意识对死刑的广泛认同为死刑制度提供了正当性和合法性资源 ,但集体意识具有两面性 ,是交织着理智与情感、意识与潜意识、理性与非理性、正义与非正义的矛盾统一体。政治领袖要尊重与反映民意 ,更应当善解与引导民意 ,运用政治智慧 ,作出科学的死刑决策 ,使死刑政策、死刑制度与死刑的适用成为一种理性的实践和实践的理性     

The Revolution and the Criminal Law

Egyptians had many reasons to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak, and to challenge the legitimacy of the interim military government. Strikingly, among the leading reasons for the uprising and for continued protest are reasons grounded in criminal justice. Reflection on this dimension of the Egyptian uprising invites a broader examination of the relationship between criminal justice and political legitimacy. While criminal justice is neither necessary nor sufficient for political legitimacy, criminal injustice substantially undermines political legitimacy and can provide independent reasons for revolution. A state may compromise its legitimacy by committing criminal acts, by perverting or subverting the criminal process, and by failing to discharge its duty to punish serious wrongdoing—a duty that then falls to individuals to discharge either directly (through vigilantism) or indirectly (through revolution). Contrary to the views of many leading criminal law theorists, the duty to punish serious wrongdoing applies to individuals and not only to states. The relevance of political legitimacy to criminal justice is more complicated. Individuals are morally obligated to follow the morally justified laws of an illegitimate state, but are not morally obligated to follow the morally unjustified laws of a legitimate state. Nor may any state punish in the absence of moral wrongdoing and moral fault. However, illegitimate states may be incapable of justly holding individuals accountable to the state, to the community, or to victims through criminal trials. This incapacity provides an additional reason to overthrow illegitimate states and replace them with legitimate states capable of justly administering a just criminal law.     

Proactive counter-terrorist strategies in conflict with human rights

Three standard governmental policy responses to terrorism have been identified: a military one, treating the fight against terrorism as a form of warfare; a police-based one, treating it simply as a form of criminal activity, to be detected and then defeated using (perhaps some modified version of) the criminal justice system; and a political one, viewing it as a form of armed rebellion to be resolved through negotiation and the political process. All three responses to terrorism may be evident in any particular instance.     

Expediency,Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law: A Systems Perspective on Civil/Criminal Procedural Hybrids

In recent years an increasing quantity of UK legislation has introduced blended or ‘hybridised’ procedures that blur the previously clear demarcation between civil and criminal legal processes, typically on the grounds of normatively-motivated political expediency. This paper provides a critical perspective on instances of procedural hybridisation in order to illustrate that, first, the reliance upon civil law measures to remedy criminal law infractions can raise human rights issues and, second, that such instrumental criminal justice strategies deliberately circumvent the enhanced procedural protections of the criminal law. By conceptualising the rule of law as a structural coupling between the political and legal systems, and due process rights as necessary and self-imposed limitations upon systemic operations, this paper employs a systems-theoretical approach to critique this balancing act between expediency and principle, and queries the circumstances under which legislation contravening the rule of law can be said to lack legitimacy.     

Social goals and appropriate policy for corrections: An economic appraisal

This paper presents a logical approach to the problem of devising socially acceptable policy for the operation of a corrections system. As an alternative to considering separately the frequently mentioned, but conflicting goals of providing rehabilitation, retribution, detention of dangerous criminals, and general and specific deterrence of criminal behavior, the authors suggest that the goal be couched in terms of minimizing the social cost of crime. By developing a model which illustrates how the corrections process relates to the various facets of the criminal justice system, and by isolating the functional relationships which must be taken into account, the authors are able to show there is an optimal level of rehabilitation, detention, and deterrence associated with a socially optimal level of criminal activity and criminal justice control activity. Although much remains to be learned before such a model can be effectively implemented, considerable research has already pointed the way for learning how to more effectively balance the alternatives for policy. An enumeration of the policy implications of the model identifies targets for further research.