The purpose of knowledge: pragmatism and the praxis of marxist criminology

This paper revives and revises the argument that there is no place for a concept of crime in marxist theory, and consequently that there is no theoretical justification for the development of marxist criminology. However, earlier essays along these lines have adopted a rationalist epistemology in advancing this case — with its attendant difficulties of idealism, privileged conceptualization and inflexibility. The present paper attempts to escape such problems, and to extend the critique of criminological theorization, by developing its case on the basis of a pragmatist epistemology. It is argued that the conflicting aims of marxist theory and the bourgeois legal theory from which crime is transferred make it difficult for marxist criminology to generate a unified theory to guide political practice and research. Moreover, Marxists' privileging of the concept of crime may be systematically blinding them to political developments which render criminology historically obsolescent.     

Imperialism, crime and criminology: Towards the decolonisation of criminology

Cohen (1988) once concluded that it is ironic that critics in the West are identifying forms of social control that are more traditional in the Third World as better alternatives to the neo–classical and positivistic repressive traditions in the West while some suggest that what they found malignant in the West should be exported to the Third World as benign. In this paper, I am going beyond Western crime control models to examine the character of criminology itself as an imperialist science for the control of others.     

犯罪学研究的路径选择--兼论犯罪学的学科地位

犯罪是最古老的社会现象之一,由于它的特殊的社会危害性,很早就引起了人们对它的研究,而研究犯罪的终极目的是“因为有犯罪,并且为了没有犯罪”①,即从社会上预防和减少犯罪。依据原南斯拉夫犯罪学家帕施奇给犯罪学下过的定义“犯罪学是为了预防和控制犯罪而把犯罪作为社会现象     

The sociology of the sociology of law: A view from economics

The sociology of law appears to be a weak field in the United States, in comparison to other indisciplinary fields of legal study, notably economic analysis of law. Although American legal sociologists have done important empirical work, particularly on the litigation process and on the legal profession, the focus of American sociology of law has been narrow, theoretically limited, and, empirically, limited in both scope and method. These deficiencies may reflect the methodological limitations of Max Weber, the most influential figure in the history of sociology in general and sociology of law in particular. The failure of legal sociologists to borrow theoretical and empirical tools from sociologically minded economists such as Gary Becker is especially regrettable, and may be due to inaccurate perceptions of the political valence of economic analysis of law, sociology's traditional skepticism about the knowledge claims of other disciplines, professional envy, and misunderstanding of the economists' conception of rational choice.     

Animal abuse and criminology: introduction to a special issue

I wish I had a penny or a cent or a peso for each of the many times in the past few years that I have listened in on a conversation or read something about human rights and animal rights and then been forced to think through to the variety of its possible conclusions what for three shipwrecked and hungry survivors in a lifeboat on the high seas is the proper thing to do about their thirst and imminent starvation. Suppose that the three survivors of this shipwreck are an adult human, the ship’s cabin boy and a dog. Suppose also that they are several days away from rescue and without hope of acquiring food or potable water from their salt-water environment. For purposes of survival in this dire situation, may one of the two humans kill and eat one of the other two survivors? If so, which one? To these two questions almost certainly the response by two of the shipwrecked survivors themselves, by would-be in-contact-radio-rescuers, by medical consultants, by theological experts and by the general public would be: “it’s alright to eat the dog”.     

Introduction to the special issue on Swedish quantitative criminology

Introduction to the special issue on Swedish quantitative criminology     

Interpreting the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident: some questions for corporate criminology

The serious nuclear incident at Fukushima Daiichi, triggered by the tsunami following the Tohuku earthquake on 11th March 2011, has prompted a flurry of investigations and debates of various kinds, within Japan and beyond. In common with many other such disasters, the causation of which brings together technologies, human behavior, organizational and regulatory cultures, and physical settings in complex configurations, serious questions have been asked about whether corporate crime was involved in creating this nuclear disaster. Of course the failure was prompted by an enormously powerful natural phenomenon, but should the operating company and government bodies have been better prepared? If so, who was to blame? Do attempts to explain the disaster in terms of cultural categories amount to a ‘cop out’; serving to excuse responsible individuals for acts both of commission and omission? In this paper, we examine these questions, focusing on the inherent ambiguity of such untoward events, and the difficult political and legal conundrums to which they can lead.     

What sort of future for critical criminology?

This article argues for a criticalcriminology that is more mindful of the growing number ofcritiques of its general epistemologicaldirection. Specifically, such criticismtakes issue with the continued emphasis incritical criminology on crime and penalty,often to the detriment of a moreencompassing focus on issues associatedwith ``social harm'. In an attempt tohighlight the current weaknesses ofcritical criminology attention is drawn toa small although revealing conference thattook place at the University of WesternSydney in February 2001. In contrast to thenarrow concerns demonstrated at thisconference the article calls for a moreexpansive approach to the study of crimeand penalty that falls under thezemiological umbrella of social harm andwhich takes account of social movements andother disciplines that have givenrecognition to the question of humanrights. Such a call derives from StanCohen's evocation of the ``voracious Gods'that must be sated if a progressive andrelevant critical criminology is to bedeveloped in an era of rapid socio-economicand political transformation.     

Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences

Although “social support” is present as a theme in many criminological writings, it has not been identified explicitly as a concept capable of organizing theory and research in criminology. Drawing on existing criminological and related writings, this address derives a series of propositions that form the foundation, in a preliminary way, for the “social support paradigm” of the study of crime and control. The overriding contention is that whether social support is delivered through government social programs, communities, social networks, families, interpersonal relations, or agents of the criminal justice system, it reduces criminal involvement. Further, I contend that insofar as the social support paradigm proves to be “Good Criminology”—establishing that nonsupportive policies and conditions are criminogenic—it can provide grounds for creating a more supportive, “Good Society.”     

RSPCA and the criminology of social control

This paper contributes to a rethinking of animal abuse control and animal welfare protection in criminology, specifically, and in the social sciences more broadly. We do this, first, through a broad mapping of the institutional control complex around animal abuse in contemporary Britain. Second, we focus on the institutional strategies and practices, past and present, of the main agency of animal protection, and the policing thereof, in this society, namely the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). In looking back to this charity’s growth since the first decades of the nineteenth century at the time of the birth of modern industrial capitalism and also to its current rationale and practices as a late-modern, corporate organisation, we explore the seeming paradox of a private body taking a lead on the regulation and prosecution of illegalities associated with animal-human relationships. Finally, the ideology and strategy of the RSPCA are explored in the context of the often visceral and culturally influential ‘morality war’ associated with proponents, respectively, of animal rights (‘abolition’) and ‘anthropic’ welfare proponents (‘regulation’ and ‘protection’).     

The power few: experimental criminology and the reduction of harm

The promise of experimental criminology is finding ways to reduce harm from crime and injustice. The problem of experimental criminology is that so few experiments produce evidence of big effects from the interventions they test. One solution to this problem may be concentrating scarce resources for experiments on the “power few:” the small percentage of places, victims, offenders, police officers or other units in any distribution of crime or injustice which produces the greatest amount of harm. By increasing the homogeneity and base rates of the samples enrolled in each experiment, the power few hypothesis predicts increased statistical power to detect program effects. With greater investment of resources, and possibly less variant responses to greater dosages of intervention—especially interventions of support, as distinct from punishment—we may also increase our chances of finding politically acceptable interventions that will work.

A deadlier post-9/11 terrorism landscape for the USA abroad: a quasi-experimental study of backlash effects of terrorism prevention

Journal of Experimental Criminology - The United States initiated sweeping counterterrorism efforts after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This study tests a backlash hypothesis as it...     

The (in)significance of genocidal behavior to the discipline of criminology

Though scholars devoted to the discipline of criminology purport to be theoretically and pragmatically exhaustive with respect to their research on ``crime,' the study of genocide, an offense prohibited by international criminal law, has been virtually ignored. Nevertheless, the obligation to research genocidal behavior seems critical because of the comprehensive and threatening nature of the offense. Clearly, the consequences of genocide are more ominous than any single violation of domestic statutory law. Presentations at two annual criminal justice conferences and papers published in 13 prestigious periodicals devoted to the discipline of criminology are examined between 1990 and 1998. Content analyses demonstrate the reluctance of the discipline of criminology to identify the crime of genocide as one worthy of scholarly attention. These findings and the future of the discipline of criminology are assessed in light of the unequivocal danger posed by genocidal behavior.