Teaching critical crimimology and critical justice studies in Canada

This paper explores four problems in relation to teaching critical criminology. First, it argues that use of the label critical criminology is misleading because it sometimes creates the impression that antagonistic theoretical perspectives are similar. Second, it profiles the student audience for criminology courses in Canada, arguing that students in different programmes and with different social backgrounds present instructors with different teaching problems. Third, it reviews some of the more recent criminology and criminal justice texts and suggests that some may not be suitable for students taking their first course in criminology or criminal justice. Fourth, it reviews a particular teaching strategy to deal with various teaching situations and suggests that an interactive, comparative teaching model might be the best method when teaching controversial perspectives. Revision of paper presented to Learned Society Meetings, Quebec City, June, 1989.     

Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research

Although increasingly global, data-driven genomics and other ‘omics’-focused research hold great promise for health discoveries, current research ethics review systems around the world challenge potential improvements in human health from such research. To overcome this challenge, we propose a ‘Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency’ that facilitates the harmonization of ethics review of specific types of data-driven international research projects while respecting globally transposable research ethics norms and principles. The Safe Harbor would consist in part of an agency supporting an International Federation for Ethics Review (IFER), formed by a voluntary compact among countries, granting agencies, philanthropies, institutions, and healthcare, patient advocacy, and research organizations. IFER would be both a central ethics review body, and also a forum for review and follow-up of policies concerning ethics norms for international research projects. It would be built on five principle elements: (1) registration, (2) compliance review, (3) recognition, (4) monitoring and enforcement, and (5) public participation. The Safe Harbor would create many benefits for researchers, countries, and the general public, and may eventually have application beyond (gen)omics to other areas of biomedical research that increasingly engage in secondary use of data and present only negligible risks.     

Doing justice to justice

Adshead's recognition that only when taken together can the many different conceptions of justice accommodate what is called for in the particularly demanding setting of forensic mental health care, is to be applauded. Each must be honoured and built into the systems of assessment and treatment that are the tasks of the forensic psychiatrist, she demonstrates. Adshead's far‐reaching revisions could resolve much that is troubling about the present practice of forensic psychiatry. Yet how much these revisions can overcome the moral dilemmas associated with dual roles in forensic psychiatry, is not so clear.     

Social justice and legal justice

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice.     

Productivity ratings of graduate programs in criminal justice based on publication in ten critical journals

This article examines scholarly productivity among faculty members of graduate programs in criminal justice. Studies of scholarly productivity in other disciplines have frequently appeared in the literature. Cartter's early work on “prestige levels” was cited as being the forerunner in this respect. The authors obtained rankings of the “ten most critical” journals from graduate criminal justice program directors. After the list of journals was compiled, these journals were searched for the most recent five-year period. Articles published by full-time faculty members at fifty-two institutions were included in the study. In addition to total productivity, data on productivity adjusted for faculty size was also presented. Problems and controversy associated with this type of work are cited by the authors.     

Psychology and the law: The critical agenda for citizen justice and radical social change

Many observers have noted that the law-psychology movement has mostly failed to meet its objectives of producing social change in any radical or otherwise substantial way. One explanation for these disappointing results is that no systematic and thorough attempt has been made to explain what the radical agenda embodies, especially in relation to identifying its core assumption. Relying on several insights developed within critical theory and appropriated by scholars of radical law-psychology, this article describes four cutting-edge approaches to contemporary psycholegal inquiry: political economy, feminist jurisprudence, anarchism, and postmodernism. Individually, these orientations provide a clearer portrait of what radical scholarship has come to represent. Collectively, they suggest a new and much-needed direction in law-psychology research, especially in relation to advancing the aims of justice in the legal sphere. This article concludes by tentatively discussing the implications of the critically informed law-psychology approach for future theoretical and applied analyses in the field.     

Building a post-war justice system in Afghanistan

This paper examines key dimensions of justice in post–war Afghanistan. These areshari'a(Islamic law), traditional institutions of informal justice (jirga), the Afghan interim legal framework, and human rights principles. It is argued that despite their apparent incompatibility, these various dimensions of justice could be integrated within a coherent framework of a new justice system in post–war Afghanistan –– a framework that would promote interaction between local institutions of informal justice and a district level court of justice, on the one hand, and between these two and a proposed human rights unit, on the other. On the basis of this analysis, an experimental model of a system of justice is proposed, which integrates local jirga and human rights units into the existing formal justice (based on shari'a and positive law) and law–enforcement institutions. This experimental model provides a multi–dimensional framework that both reflects the cultural and religious values of Afghan society, and at the same time, has the capacity to draw on human rights principles. It is maintained that the model has the capacity to deliver justice expeditiously and in cost–effective ways; it also has a strong potential to act as a channel of communication between ordinary people and a modern participatory state in post–war Afghanistan. However, in order to test the applicability of this model in the real world, it needs first to be thoroughly discussed among Afghan and international legal experts as well as among ordinary Afghan people, and then piloted in selected districts in Afghanistan.     

Community justice/restorative justice: Prospects for a new social ecology for community corrections

Community corrections policies and programs have lacked a framework which articulates strategies for engaging community groups and defines roles for citizens in the corrections process. In this paper we critique both traditional approaches to community corrections based on an individual treatment model and the new “get tough” approaches which emphasize punitive sanctions and surveillance. We outline a restorative justice model as an alternative to both of these one‐dimensional, case‐driven approaches. The restorative model targets victims, communities, and offenders for intervention and attempts to engage each of these correctional clients in an effort to repair harm, strengthen communities, and reintegrate offenders following appropriate sanctioning. Obstacles to implementation and threats to cooptation and dilution of a restorative agenda are discussed.     

Orientations to juvenile justice: Exploratory notes from a statewide survey of juvenile justice decisionmakers

This study examined the extent to which orientations to juvenile justice held by decisionmakers are related to their functional roles and educational backgrounds. Predictions concerning this question were drawn from both the literature on complex organizations and writings by scholars interpreting and forecasting the future of juvenile justice.The findings indicate that assignment to specific roles in the juvenile justice system is a significant predictor of commitment to either a rehabilitative or a just deserts model of juvenile justice. This effect appears to be modified to some extent by educational backgrounds and professional identifications. The implications of these findings for a continuation of the traditional rehabilitative ideal in juvenile justice are discussed.     

Digital justice

In a period of growing suspicion about the power of digital technology and ‘tech companies’, this short comment aspires to argue that the conditions for the functioning of the constitutional state contain an inherent obligation for the state not only to be sufficiently sensitive to the changes brought about by digitisation, but also to make use of digitisation. A key condition for the functioning of the constitutional state is e.g. that the judiciary is capable of fully implementing its task of affording legal protection. Reinterpreting this condition in the modern age implies that courts should remain explicitly vigilant when it comes to digitisation. Hence, affording protection is not only a question of what makes formal regulation in a digital world different from regulation in the well-known offline world. If the constitutional state is to be ‘capable’ of implementing its task of affording legal protection, it must also be sufficiently sensitive to the changes brought about by digitisation, as well as deploy the potential that digitisation offers.