Criminology post-Maastricht

My objectives in this paper are to try and identify the range of challenges that now confront critical criminologists who work in, and are attentive to, the “new Europe” whose construction was so clearly signalled by the Maastricht Treaty (the Treaty on European Union) of 1993. I want to concentrate here on two issues — firstly, the challenge of situating the work of criminology in relation to the process of political union (and enlargement) of the European Union, and, secondly, the articulation of an agenda of work for critical criminology, that derives, from an understanding of this broader context. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Discussion: wrestling with the beast

Criminology is but one of what Abbott refers to as “sociologies archipelago of particular subject matters.” I discuss the papers in this issue of Crime, Law and Social Change as “fractals” of disciplines that contribute to knowledge in criminology.     

The failure of postmodern criminology

Postmodernism has recently washed up on the shores of criminology, and is the subject of considerable theoretical debate. This essay critically assesses some of the most trenchant and relevant components of the theoretical bases for postmodernism, and sketches out their applicability to criminology. It argues that postmodernism can be of little assistance to intellectuals committed to critique and fundamental social change. While postmodernists look down so severely at ‘old-fashioned’ ‘meta-narratives’ like Marxism, it is now they who are falling off the contemporary agenda, because they are dated and theoretically flawed. My main argument is that the theoretical imporverishment of postmodernism creates an obstacle to the development of a truly critical criminology. One of the current challenges of critical criminology is to amplify the critique of postmodern criminology and to reorient the trajectory of critical criminology away from the postmodern detour. The essay explores the historical context of the emergence of postmodernism, the modernist/ postmodernist era, deconstructionism, ‘meta-narratives’, idealism, form and content, fragmentation/pluralism/relativism, absence of progressive praxis, conservatism and Marxism.     

The Value of Quantitative Analysis for a Critical Understanding of Crime and Society

The value of quantitative analysis for a critical understanding of crime and society has often been questioned. This paper joins the debate by reviewing quantitative evidence on key criminological topics: the causes of crime, public opinion on crime, and the operation and impact of the criminal justice system. This evidence highlights the importance of economic deprivation and racial prejudice and discrimination for understanding U.S. crime and justice and points to the ineffectiveness of the nation’s “get tough” approach to crime control. In these ways, quantitative analysis has already bolstered central propositions in critical criminology and promises to continue to do so.     

Restorative Justice and “Empowerment”: Producing and Governing Active Subjects through “Empowering” Practices

During the last quarter-century, restorative justice has emerged as a widely-utilised response to crime in Western nations. This article, which stems from a Foucauldian genealogy of restorative justice, argues that its embeddedness within the discourse of “empowerment” renders restorative justice a politically acceptable response to crime. “Empowerment”, it is argued, is one of many conditions of emergence of restorative justice. The discourse of “empowerment” underpins restorative justice in tangible ways, and has informed legislation and policy in Western jurisdictions. This article seeks to problematise the taken-for-granted nature of this discourse. It argues that the discourse of “empowerment” produces restorative justice subjects who are increasingly governed and governable. As “empowering” restorative practices are targeted towards “disempowered” individuals and communities, concerns are raised about the potential of restorative justice to disproportionately impact upon socially marginalised populations and to increase social exclusion.     

Do introductory criminology textbooks cite the most influential criminologists? Estimating the “match” between what journals report and what textbooks discuss

Using recent citation analyses of criminology journals and textbooks to estimate the “match” between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. Twentythree criminology textbooks published from 1989 to 1993 were ranked by how prominently they cite the 25 most-cited scholars in recent leading criminology journals. I suggest some reasons why criminology textbook authors extensively cite and discuss some influential scholars but not others, and conclude by noting several limitations to using citation analysis to estimate the match between journals and textbooks.     

Left Out? The coverage of critical perspectives in introductory criminology textbooks, 1990–1999

DeKeseredy and Schwartz have criticized introductory criminology textbooks published in the United States for their ‘poor treatment’ of critical/radical perspectives. This paper subjects this criticism to empirical analysis by studying the coverage of critical perspectives in 34 introductory criminology textbooks published from 1990 to 1999. Specifically, I examine how the coverage of critical perspectives in the textbooks is influenced by: 1) the theoretical orientations of the texts; 2) the positions of the texts on debate over conflict and consensus theories of law; and 3) the positions of the texts on the evidence supporting critical perspectives. This analysis shows that critical/radical perspectives in general, but in particular recent developments in critical criminology (including critical feminism, left realism, peacemaking criminology and postmodern criminology) are often ‘left out’ of contemporary criminology textbooks.     

How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs in research on self-reported juvenile delinquency? An experimental comparison of Internet vs paper-and-pencil questionnaires and different definitions of the reference period

There has been relatively little change over recent decades in the methods used in research on self-reported delinquency. Face-to-face interviews and self-administered interviews in the classroom are still the predominant alternatives envisaged. New methods have been brought into the picture by recent computer technology, the Internet, and an increasing availability of computer equipment and Internet access in schools. In the autumn of 2004, a controlled experiment was conducted with 1,203 students in Lausanne (Switzerland), where “paper-and-pencil” questionnaires were compared with computer-assisted interviews through the Internet. The experiment included a test of two different definitions of the (same) reference period. After the introductory question (“Did you ever...”), students were asked how many times they had done it (or experienced it), if ever, “over the last 12 months” or “since the October 2003 vacation”. Few significant differences were found between the results obtained by the two methods and for the two definitions of the reference period, in the answers concerning victimisation, self-reported delinquency, drug use, failure to respond (missing data). Students were found to be more motivated to respond through the Internet, take less time for filling out the questionnaire, and were apparently more confident of privacy, while the school principals were less reluctant to allow classes to be interviewed through the Internet. The Internet method also involves considerable cost reductions, which is a critical advantage if self-reported delinquency surveys are to become a routinely applied method of evaluation, particularly so in countries with limited resources. On balance, the Internet may be instrumental in making research on self-reported delinquency far more feasible in situations where limited resources so far have prevented its implementation.

Micro-models of criminal careers: A synthesis of the criminal careers and life course approaches via semiparametric mixed poisson regression models,with empirical applications

Much recent research and debate in criminology have centered around how to conceptualize and model longitudinal sequences of delinquent and criminal acts committed by individuals. Two approaches dominate this controversy. One originates in thecriminal careers paradigm, which emphasizes a potentialheterogeneity of offending groups in the general population—thus leading to a distinction between incidence and prevalence of criminal offending, a focus on the onset, persistence, and desistence of criminal careers, and the possibility that criminals are a distinctive group with constant high rates of offending. Another approach places criminal events within a broader context ofstudies of the life course by explicitly substituting the conceptualization of “social events” for that of “criminal careers”. With respect to analytical models, this approach emphasizes a potentialheterogeneity of offenders with respect to order of criminal events from first to second to higher orders and thus suggests an analysis of the “risks” or “hazards” of offending by order of offense. Some extant commentaries on the criminal careers and life course approaches to conceptualizing and modeling longitudinal sequences of delinquent and criminal events committed by individuals have emphasized their differences and incompatibilities. In contrast, we apply recently developed semiparametric mixed Poisson regression techniques to develop conditions under which the two conceptual/modeling approaches are formally equivalent. We also modify the semiparametric mixed Poisson regression model of criminal careers to incorporate information on order of the delinquent/criminal event and develop an empirical application. This modification demonstrates the complementarity of the criminal careers and life course approaches, even though they have somewhat different foci.     

“To develop and test:” The inventive difference between evaluation and experimentation

The National Research Council (NRC) Report on Improving Evaluation of Anticrime Programs raises a fundamental question about the mission of evaluation research. The implicit premise of the report is that the mission of evaluation is to answer questions about programs developed by others; in short, to test anti-crime programs. In contrast, the mission of experimental criminology has, historically, been to develop anti-crime programs as well as to test them. There are times when an arm’s-length relationship between program and evaluation may be appropriate. Yet, such a separation necessarily produces a courtroom-like adjudication role for evaluators, rather than the laboratory-like, participant–inventor role that has characterized the best of experimental criminology. The recent case of the Chicago police’s “evaluating” the use of sequential suspect identification methods developed by academic psychologists shows the many flaws of the “testing-only” model. This suggests that providing “effective guidance of criminal justice policy and practice,” as the NRC report defines its focus [Lipsey, M. ed (2005). http://newton.nap.edu/pdf/0309097061/pdf_image/R1.pdf] will not only require evaluation research (defined as arm’s-length testing) but the full toolbox of experimental criminology to develop and test anti-crime programs.

Moment of Silence

The paper looks at the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and cases, e.g. Brown v. Gilmore, followed by Croft v. Perry and Sherman v. Koch, cases that relate to the concept of the “moment of silence” in educational institutions in which it was claimed that such events constitute a breach of the establishment clause. Courts have been inconsistent in their decision-making, which may indicate a lack of transparency not only in the interpretation of the relevant phrase in the Constitution but also in the judicial interpretation of the “three-pronged test” with regard to “excessive entanglement” as laid out in Lemon v. Kurtzman of 1971. The paper discusses the “moment of silence” within the framework of a model of silence in which this type of silence would be labeled as either textual or situational silence.     

“Scholarly influence” and white-collar crime scholarship

This article explores many of the factors that play a role in the relative lack of scholarly influence of criminology and criminal justice professionals who focus on studying white-collar and corporate crime. The latest studies of “scholarly influence” in criminology and criminal justice journals and textbooks based on citation analyses confirm the absence of scholars who study white-collar and corporate crime. The sparse inclusion of white-collar and corporate crime topics in criminology and criminal justice curriculum in academic programs also indicate that the area is considered by many as a subfield rather than a mainstream component of academic criminology. Whether or not this status will change remains to be seen, but, on a positive note, there are a few encouraging signs that scholarly influence in the field will include more white-collar criminologists in the future.     

Whither Critical Criminology? A Contemplation on Existential Hybridization

There has been much debate, in recent years, about the task, aims and goals of critical criminology, and about the need for critical criminology to re-invent itself. Referring to Sartre’s existentialism, this contribution introduces and expands on the thesis that critical criminology may be able to re-invent itself with the help of new ‘guiding images’, most notably: existential hybridization. This is a revised version of a lecture given at Keele University (UK) on 27 March 2007. This paper is a much shortened version of an extensive contribution on ‘The Being and Nothingness of Critical Criminology’ (forthcoming).     

The Abuses and Offences Committed During the Tsunami Crisis

The tsunami crisis of 26 December 2004 in South and Southeast Asia brought out the best and worst behaviours of humankind. The “worst behaviours”, some of which were criminal, should be taken as an important case study for criminology. The abuses and offences that took place following the disaster were committed by both the victims and other parties involved either directly or indirectly, e.g. authorities distributing donations and fundraisers. The tsunami provides a representative case study of a natural disaster situation, and reflects much of the opportunistic behaviour of a significant section of humankind even given the cost of human suffering. This paper discusses the reported “worst behaviours” or abuses and offences committed by different groups and tries to provide explanations for such criminogenic behaviours. Social disorganisation theory and opportunity theory will be discussed.

“Organized crime” and “organized crime”: Indeterminate problems of definition

Despite decades of effort, the search for a universal definition of organized crime has eluded both academics, criminal justice agencies, as well as international bodies. More than two decades ago, a content analysis of such definitional efforts by this writer (Hagan, 1983) noted that, while many writers, including those of textbooks, failed to supply explicit definitions of organized crime, some consensus was apparent. These earlier findings are explored and compared with updated content analyses of American criminology and criminal justice textbooks and organized crime textbooks. Also discussed are definitions offered by criminal justice agencies and those by international organizations. A distinction is made between “Organized Crime” groups and “organized crime,” activities by groups that are organized. This paper was presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Baltimore, Maryland, March 2006.     

Between the ‘Home’ and ‘Institutional’ Worlds: Tensions and Contradictions in the Practice of House Arrest

In this paper we argue that the theoretical work of Goffman (1961) on “total institutions,” Foucault’s (1977) insights into the workings of disciplinary power, and an account of contemporary forms of punishment and social control in postmodern society (Staples 2000) help us better understand the experiences of those individuals sentenced to house arrest. Based on face-to-face interviews with twenty-three people being electronically monitored in a Midwestern metropolitan area, our analysis identifies three themes that illustrate the ways in which electronic monitoring is experienced as a complex amalgam of what Goffman (1961, p. 13) saw as the distinct “home world” and the “institutional world”. These themes include (1) “Home is Where the Machine Is,” (2) “Producing Docile Bodies,” and (3) “Threat of Sanctions”. We reassert our claim (Staples 1994, 2000) that contemporary forms of social control such as electronic monitoring reflect an ongoing struggle to deal with problems and issues set in motion with the birth of modernity.     

Poverty and Peacemaking Criminology: Beyond Mainstream Criminology

Mainstream criminology has traditionally focused on poverty as an isolated variable, whose effects are typically explored by inserting a limited measure of this variable in a multivariate analysis. Peacemaking criminology, however, offers an alternative perspective. In this paradigm, poverty is seen as a source of suffering and, to a degree, a “crime” in and of itself. Furthermore, the suffering poverty engenders is an enveloping social experience that exposes its victims to concentrated disadvantage—or, to use Jonathan Kozol’s (1991) term, to a range of “savage inequalities.” Thus, poverty is best understood not as an isolated variable, but as a master status of fundamental social reality that subjects people to lives filled with suffering—suffering that can engender criminal behavior. From a peacemaking perspective, a key avenue for preventing crime is, in the short run, diminishing the suffering poverty causes and, in the long run, embracing social policies that reduce the prevalence of economic suffering in contemporary society.

---

Corruption and organized crime: Lessons from history

The intention of this paper is to serve in part as a warning to the international community concerned about corruption, to keep the focus based on the critical analysis of empirically verifiable information. In ways similar to how theorists spoke about organized crime in the 1960's and 1970's, articles today attempt to refer to corruption as if there were one agreed upon definition. However, like the concept “organized crime”, the term “corruption” involves diverse processes which have different meanings within different societies. Corruption (or a focus on corruption), may be the means toward very diverse ends and each may have a different impact on the society. While in some societies corruption may correctly be seen to be the “cause” of forms of social disorganization, in other situations corruption may be the “result” of larger changes. Understanding the processes within a specific context allows one to understand the nature of the corruption. Corruption rhetoric may too easily become apolitical platform for ranking and evaluating nations as to their worth based on criteria that lose meaning when applied across jurisdictions. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Transcending the dilemma of “public interest”

This paper discusses the evolution and recent trends in the development of the constitutional concept of “public use” in the case-law history of the United States starting from the source of US government’s taking powers and the original meaning of the Taking Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Since the concepts of “public use” and “public interest” are extremely difficult to be defined, it is very hard for the US courts to develop a relevant operative criterion. In the United States, the safeguard of “public interest” in taking mainly lies legislative rather than judicial control. In a democratic society, legislative judgment is highly respected by the courts and the entire takeovers that conform to public use as determined by the Congress are usually deemed constitutional. In this sense, the Congress is a “public interest machine”, which automatically generates laws and decisions on behalf of public interests through the democratic representative process. The paper eventually suggests that China should divert its attention from the theoretical definition of “public interest” to institutional construction, and should make the National and Local People’s Congresses and their standing committees to play major roles in deciding taking and compensation schemes. __________ Translated from Zhongguo Faxue 中国法学 (China Law), 2005, (5): 36–45