Beyond Doing No Harm: A Call for Participatory Action Research with Marginalized Populations in Criminological Research

While most social scientists agree that the outcome of research should be useful in the real world, the idea that research can, and should, be empowering and directly useful to research participants has largely been limited to the margins of a few social science disciplines. While community psychologists and critical sociologists have long embraced participatory research and co-operative inquiry approaches—where the empowerment of research participants is as important as the contribution to knowledge and policy development—criminologists have been slow to adopt more emancipatory research models except for a few notable exceptions. This essay calls for the use of participatory action research by criminologists and for us to have a dialogue about the social value of our research and our obligations to research participants beyond “simply doing no harm.”

---

THE UNREPENTANT HORSE‐SLASHER: MORAL INSANITY AND THE ORIGINS OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THOUGHT*

This paper raises questions about the origins, definition and nature of criminological knowledge by seeking to identify the earliest examples of scientific criminological thought. Pushing the story further back in time than previous studies of criminological history, it proposes a way to think about criminology before criminologists—that is, efforts to study crime scientifically before the emergence of specifically criminological discourses and before the formation of the professional specialization of criminologist. The roots of scientific criminological thought lie in late 18th‐ and early 19th‐century discourses on the phenomenon of moral insanity, or uncontrollable, remorseless criminal behavior. Examination of these texts reveals both the origins of criminological knowledge and the birth of idea that crime can be studied scientifically.     

BEYOND ADOLESCENCE‐LIMITED CRIMINOLOGY: CHOOSING OUR FUTURE—THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2010 SUTHERLAND ADDRESS*

For over a half century, criminology has been dominated by a paradigm—adolescence‐limited criminology (ALC)—that has privileged the use of self‐report surveys of adolescents to test sociological theories of criminal behavior and has embraced the view that “nothing works” to control crime. Although ALC has created knowledge, opposed injustice, and advanced scholars’ careers, it has outlived its utility. The time has come for criminologists to choose a different future. Thus, a new paradigm is needed that is rooted in life‐course criminology, brings criminologists closer to offenders and to the crime event, prioritizes the organization of knowledge, and produces scientific knowledge that is capable of improving offenders’ lives and reducing crime.     

White collar crime and the definitional quagmire: A provisional solution

More than virtually any other realm of criminological scholarship, white collar crime study is plagued by unresolved definitional, conceptual, and typological issues. The present confused and contradictory invocations of the core terminology pertaining to white collar crime introduce a significant element of incoherence into the field. In this paper the seminal origins of the concept of white collar crime, in the work of E. A. Ross and E. H. Sutherland, are explored. The principal elements of subsequent efforts to define white collar crime are identified. It is claimed that a war of white collar criminologists' has emerged, principally pitting critical white collar criminologists against positivist white collar criminologists. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the principal constituencies in this definitional war are examined. The paper concludes with the argument that the concept of white collar crime is defined on three different levels—presentational, typological, and operational —and that any definition of white collar crime is meaningful only in relation to its stated purpose.     

SOCIAL THOUGHT AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The substantive area of criminology has increasingly become politicized with new paradigms arising to challenge the traditional perspectives. For the purpose of this analysis the voluminous amount of criminological research and writing is placed within three major paradigms: (1) kinds of people, (2) kinds of environments, and (3) power/conflict. The increasing articulation of the power/conflict paradigm has brought about an intensification of conflict in society and among criminologists. The future of criminology and subsequently of criminologists will be determined by the interplay of these and emerging other paradigms among academic criminologists and their competing expression among the public at large.     

Judicial empowerment expanded: Political determinants of national courts' cooperation with the CJEU

Scholars in EU studies have developed diverse justifications for explaining why national judges cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union. In this regard, judicial empowerment theories have stressed the strategic importance of cooperation for empowering national courts vis‐à‐vis high courts and political actors. Nevertheless, these explanations have been restricted to the use of preliminary references by lower courts. This contribution expands the explanatory power of these approaches by exploring other potential scenarios and instruments that national judges can use to challenge the position of their governments and judicial superiors, for example, by emphasising the importance of CJEU precedent for their strategic behaviour. By offering new data collected from case‐law and surveys, this article offers a more systematic assessment of the relevance of cooperation for national judges to reinforce their authority against other institutions. The findings call for a revision of the traditional understanding of judicial empowerment theories.     

Taking Sides? Issues of Bias and Partisanship When Researching Socio-political Conflict

The article unpacks the issues of bias and partisanship—and the risk of being accused of these—which confront social scientists who study socio-political conflict. Drawing on the author’s experience when conducting research on the conflict between animal liberation activists and their state and corporate adversaries in Britain (1999–2014), the article argues for a relational research approach—focusing on the interaction between contending parties, rather than study stakeholders singly—as a way to overcome challenges of taking sides when studying socio-political conflict. The debate generated by Howard Becker’s classic essay “Whose side are we on?” (1967), now 50 years old, is used throughout the article as a point of reference for addressing the issues involved. The argument is made for constant reflexivity during research on radical social movements, and for “temporary bias” during qualitative fieldwork.     

Criminology as social control: discriminatory research &; its role in the reproduction of social inequalities and crime

The law discriminates against low status offenders, but so too might criminologists during the course of their research. In this paper, we address the following question: Does the social status of lawbreakers have an effect on their likelihood of being recruited to offender-based research? The answer to this question is important for reasons that extend beyond academic criminology. If criminologists discriminate, then they themselves are active agents in the reproduction of social disadvantage. If criminology is to reduce inequality, the field must first identify and reduce discriminatory behavior within its own research community.     

Cross-Cultural Reflections of Organized Crime

The authors discuss the phenomenon of organized crime and why it appears to be a uniquely American problem. Comparing and contrasting ten cultural and/or socio-political variables, the authors demonstrate that American organized crime is uniquely related to its historical heritage, and that the inability of British society (inclusive of the media, researchers, and police officials) to officially recognize organized crime may be a result of “perceptual impairment” as opposed to its non-existence. The authors conclude that the study of the organizaion of crime deserves increased emphasis among criminologists, particularly with respect to the phenomenon of organized crime.     

Development of a black criminology and the role of the black criminologist

In its study of black criminality, the discipline of criminology has failed to cultivate a cohesive, continuous and recognized body of research—what is termed a “black criminology.” Inasmuch as the theoretical framework of the discipline is limited by its failure to develop this subfield, policy recommendations proposed to and adopted by the criminal justice system are limited. It is argued that the development of a black criminology is necessary to fill this gap—in much the same way that feminist criminology filled a void. The components and scope of this subfield are outlined and the role of the black criminologist in the development of a black criminology is evaluated. It is argued that although black criminologists are needed to chart a black criminology, their participation alone is insufficient for the full development and vitality of this subfield.     

Racial Discrimination and Hirschi's Criminological Classic: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge

In Causes of Delinquency, Travis Hirschi attempted to falsify the strain theory claim that racial discrimination might contribute to the delinquency of African American youths. A reanalysis of the Richmond Youth Project data used in his classic study, however, reveals that perceived racial discrimination is a robust predictor of delinquent involvement. This finding suggests that Hirschi missed a historic opportunity to focus the attention of a generation of criminologists on how the unique experiences of African Americans may shape their criminality. Given the salience of perceived racial bias in the lives of many African Americans, the subsequent neglect by scholars of discrimination as a potential source of crime is a remarkable omission—so much so that it constitutes a significant and as yet untold chapter in the sociology of knowledge.     

Post-motivational Progression and the Possibility of Aborting Protracted Crime

The idea for this article emerged from a cursory examination of the National Crime Victimization Survey (US Department of Justice, 1997–2004). Unbeknownst to the authors (and possibly to most of the readers) is a trend confirming that about 2/3 of all violent crimes in the United States end up as attempted crimes, as opposed to completed crimes. Equally intriguing is that international crime figures confirm, almost exactly, the US Survey statistics. If these figures are accurate, then criminologists and crime control agents should ask the question: if 2/3 of all violent crimes fail to materialize—for whatever reason—under their own weight, why cannot criminologists and crime control agents in the future develop a clinical competency that can exploit this failure and further reduce the completion rate of violent crime to technically zero? If that can be accomplished, then violent crimes can theoretically be aborted. Such a futuristic design should not be considered farfetched in light of the current advancements in today’s technology, including the military practice of laser-bombing a car speeding on the road several miles below, or the on going military testing of “shooting a missile with a missile”. This article focuses on the undiscovered, yet enormous, role of post-motivational criminology, which—when the desired clinical competency is developed—can literally change the trajectory of violent crimes and possibly abort them in progress. While this article cannot promise answers for the next decades, it can, at least, stimulate the criminological community to think beyond its traditional boundaries and to engage in quantum research consortiums that can study the dynamics of post-motivational progressions and eventually resolve why some bullets miss or can intentionally be made not to hit.     

Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins

What impact does formal punishment have on antisocial conduct—does it deter or promote it? The findings from a long line of research on the labeling tradition indicate formal punishments have the opposite-of-intended consequence of promoting future misbehavior. In another body of work, the results show support for deterrence-based hypotheses that punishment deters future misbehavior. So, which is it? We draw on a nationally representative sample of British adolescent twins from the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study to perform a robust test of the deterrence versus labeling question. We leverage a powerful research design in which twins can serve as the counterfactual for their co-twin, thereby ruling out many sources of confounding that have likely impacted prior studies. The pattern of findings provides support for labeling theory, showing that contact with the justice system—through spending a night in jail/prison, being issued an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO), or having an official record—promotes delinquency. We conclude by discussing the impact these findings may have on criminologists’ and practitioners’ perspective on the role of the juvenile justice system in society.     

The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions

Drawing upon an analysis of the political vectors behind constitutional reform in Israel (1992), Canada (1982) New Zealand (1990), and South Africa (1993), the article suggests that the trend toward constitutionalization in culturally divided polities has not been adequately delineated by extant theories of constitutional transformation. An examination of the political origins of these four constitutional revolutions suggests that judicial empowerment is in many cases the consequence of a conscious strategy undertaken by threatened political and economic elites seeking to preserve their hegemony vis-a-vis the growing influence of "peripheral" groups in crucial majoritarian policymaking arenas. In response to perceived threats by peripheral groups, elites who possess disproportionate access to and influence upon the legal arena often initiate a constitutional entrenchment of rights in order to insulate policymaking from popular political pressure. Power is transferred from majoritarian decision-making arenas to national high courts, where they assume their policy preferences will find greater support. This process of conscious judicial empowerment is likely to occur (a) when the judiciary's public reputation for political impartiality and rectitude is relatively high and (b) when the courts are likely to rule, by and large, in accordance with the cultural propensities and policy preferences of the traditionally hegemonic elites.     

An Empowerment Theory of Legal Norms*

Abstract. Traditionally legal theorists, whenever engaged in controversy, have agreed on one point: legal norms are par excellence rules which impose obligations. The author examines this assumption, which from another perspective (that of constitutional law, for instance) appears less obvious. In fact, constitutional rules are commoniy empowering norms, norms which do not create duties but powers. To this objection many theorists would reply that empowering rules are incomplete and that they are to be understood as parts of duty-creating rules. A different position from this traditional stance is that defended in Kelsen's later writings, according to which the fundamental type of norm is the empowering norm. The author discusses Kelsen's three theories on the “ideal form” or structure of the legal norm, with special attention to the third of these, the empowerment theory.     

What’s Wrong with Penal Populism? Politics,the Public,and Criminological Expertise

This article discusses “penal populism” and its conflict with criminological expertise. It considers the proper balance between professional expertise and community sentiment in the formulation of crime control and penal policy—especially in respect of policy measures where moral rather than instrumental considerations are involved. It raises theoretical questions about the nature of “public opinion”—does it exist other than as an artifact of survey instruments?—and its proper role in a democratic polity. And it considers the professional responsibility of criminological experts in relation to policy formation and political debate. The performance of public health experts during the COVID pandemic is presented as an instructive case in point. Can criminology establish itself as a credible form of social scientific knowledge worthy of public trust? And how should criminologists comport themselves when engaging with questions of public policy and political controversy?

     

Restorative Justice,Consistency and Proportionality: Examining the Trade-off

Abstract

Restorative justice conferences that operate as sentencing mechanisms involve the making of a trade-off between empowering lay participants to make their own decisions, and the requirements of consistency and proportionality, which are established principles of sentencing. In current restorative justice practice, this trade-off tends to be made more in favour of consistency and proportionality, at the expense of the empowerment of lay participants.

Empowerment is central to key benefits of restorative justice, such as reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction. However, its importance to the effectiveness of restorative justice is not always properly acknowledged. In addition to this lack of acknowledgment, there are both conceptual and practical problems with the principles of consistency and proportionality (particularly in the way that they are presented when considered in relation to restorative justice) that are often overlooked. As a result, the tendency is for assumptions to be made about the necessary supremacy of these principles over empowerment. This paper urges more acknowledgement of the importance of empowerment in restorative justice, together with a greater appreciation of the problems with consistency and proportionality, with a view to challenging assumptions about the way that the trade-off must be made.     

State Crime,the Prophetic Voice and Public Criminology Activism

State crimes are, by far, the most destructive of all crimes. The use and threat to use nuclear weapons, the aerial bombardment of civilians, wars of aggression, torture, the failure to mitigate global warming and adapt to climate change ecocide, along with myriad other state-corporate crimes, fill the world with death and devastation, misery and want. This article argues that criminologists have a responsibility to act as public criminologists by speaking in the “prophetic voice” concerning these crimes and their victims, and then acting in the political arena in an attempt to control and prevent these harms. The paper briefly describes three approaches to engaging in what Belknap (Criminology 53:1–23, 2015) calls “criminology activism” on these issues. The first approach is for criminologists to counter the cultures of denial and normalization that usually cover state crimes. The second involves contesting the global corporate capitalist system and the power of the American capitalist state in an effort to achieve specific progressive policy reforms and structural changes in the global political economy. Finally, criminologists can work to enhance the democratization of the international political community and strengthen the ability of specific international legal institutions to control state crimes.     

Unmasking the Crimes of the Powerful

Even in formally open, liberal, democratic states, a series of barriers exist as obstacles to critical criminologists who wish to conduct research that scrutinises the activities of powerful states and corporations. Much evidence suggests that in the current political climate, the barring of access to sources of data, neo-liberal re-configurations in the funding of research, and the narrowing of publishing and dissemination opportunities to counter-hegemonic voices are severely limiting the ability to conduct critical research. This article reports on recent experiences of researchers concerned with unmasking the crimes of the powerful and argues that, despite the obstacles power sources use to obscure and mystify the illegal and violent practices engaged in by states and corporations, there remains fertile space around research agendas, and in universities, for critical researchers to exploit. To gain insight from the ways in which researchers can, and do, establish alternative agendas, this article seeks to explore some of the principles that might inform and encourage those forms of resistance, and to establish how critical criminologists might continue to subject the powerful to scrutiny. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

ACTIVIST CRIMINOLOGY: CRIMINOLOGISTS’ RESPONSIBILITY TO ADVOCATE FOR SOCIAL AND LEGAL JUSTICE

Similar to many criminologists, my interest in pursuing this career was driven by a desire to improve responses to injustices, on both small and large scales. I believe that among criminologists, this dedication to effect changes in social and legal justice disproportionately drives those of us historically kept out of the academy due to our race, gender, class, sexual identity, and/or other marginalizations. Fortunately, there is a growing diversity among criminologists and this has had a powerful impact on expanding the scope and depth of the field. At the same time, I am concerned that academic training and university climates frequently work against our commitment to advancing social and legal justice changes, what I refer to as “criminology activism.” This address is a call to action, stressing criminologists’ responsibility to advocate for social and legal justice on small and large scales. Numerous types of criminology activism are identified (e.g., in research, service, and teaching), including the requisite to continue diversifying the representation of criminologists.