Convict Criminology and the Struggle for Inclusion

Convict Criminology (CC) began in the early 1990s as a reaction to the then current state of academic criminology that did not adequately reflect the voices of convicted felons. Since its beginnings, CC has attempted to draw attention to a range of problems created by the criminal justice apparatus and defenders of the status quo. Dr. Joanne Belknap’s 2014 ASC presidential address and subsequent article presented an argument that stressed the importance of activism to be considered as part of criminological research. In the process, she reviewed her career and then criticized the field of Critical Criminology, in particular Convict Criminology. The article, however, ignored the numerous efforts that CC has engaged in to build an inclusive group school, movement, organization and network that includes the diverse voices of Ph.D. educated convicts and excons, and overall reflected a superficial understanding of the history and intent of Convict Criminology. This article attempts to explain the shortcomings of Belknap’s article and clarifies misunderstandings.     

Onward and Upward: the Significance of Mentorship for Formerly Incarcerated Students and Academics

In the era of mass incarceration, millions of American citizens have been disenfranchised by the social stigma of a felony conviction. Mentorship of formerly incarcerated (FI) students by FI academics—many of whom identify with Convict Criminology (CC)—is slowly forging a pathway out of the social wasteland of past felony convictions. A common goal of CC is to help FI students and academics overcome the social and structural barriers that severely limit their life chances, as well as those of millions of FI citizens in the world’s largest prison system. In this article, three FI criminology faculty members focus on the vital importance of mentorship presented through individual autoethnographic writings. We emphasize four prominent narratives or themes: (1) common narratives of the role of mentorship: encouragement, inclusion, and social capital; (2) differing narratives of the role of mentorship; (3) common narratives of the role of mentorship: experiences of mentoring as activism and advocacy; and (4) common narratives of the role of mentorship in reducing professional fragility. We also consider other dynamics that might emerge in the mentor–mentee relationship involving FI individuals, including the complexities of “coming out” as FI and the fragility of FI identity in the academic world. We conclude with recommendations for future research on the role of mentorship for FI individuals and make suggestions for other areas of study for CC, more generally.

     

Revolutionizing Academic Activism: Transpraxis,Critical Pedagogy,and Justice for a People Yet to Be

One strain of thought that is both consistent with and an amplification of academic activism (Belknap in Criminology 53(1):1–22, 2015) is the critical criminological literature on transpraxis. As a theory of change, transpraxis advances a thesis on the dialogical and relational pedagogy of mutual struggle, of shared being and becoming. In addition, this literature critiques the dominant philosophy of human risk management and the current culture of captivity politics in which the struggle for transformative (i.e., interdependent and collective) change is “finalized.” We argue that, in the present era, processes of humanness and expressions of culture de-vitalize (e.g., homogenize, normalize, territorialize) this existence. In so doing, humanness and culture tend toward Hegelian reaction-negation dynamics, thereby forestalling and/or foreclosing justice for an awaiting people. Accordingly, this article outlines the dimensions of transpraxis as theory, explains how revolutionary academic activism necessitates a critical pedagogy for a people yet to be, and it reconceives the educational terrain of criminological activism as the pedagogy of becoming. We argue that the transpraxis properties of this pedagogy facilitate revolutionary academic activism and further the radical potential of transformative justice. This activism and potential exist for the multitude.     

The New School of Convict Criminology Thrives and Matures

This article discusses the past, present, and future of the New School of Convict Criminology (CC). A short history, including a discussion of literature, major works, and research studies is provided as is a review of Convict Criminology Group origination, membership, and activities. A first attempt at formal Convict Criminology Theory construction is presented alongside four research hypotheses. University prejudice and exclusion, as well as criminal justice hate words, are also addressed. The conclusion explores the future of CC and requests support for the movement.     

Queer Criminology as Activism

Belknap’s recent call for greater criminological activism in the service of social justice identifies queer criminology as an important site for such activism. Indeed, much of the work undertaken by queer criminologists is already motivated by a concern to address a variety of injustices—whether in the form of discrimination, heteronormativity, gender binarism, or invisibility—experienced by queer communities in the realm of criminal justice, criminology, and beyond. In this paper, I explore the existing and possible future connections between queer criminology and activism. I highlight the ways in which queer politics have always involved social activism, including activism relating to criminal justice issues. I then suggest some possible directions for expanding queer criminological activism within the traditional academic roles of research, teaching, and service. Pursuing such directions, I argue, is necessary in order to set the foundation for further queer criminological activism beyond academia.     

Green Activist Criminology and the Epistemologies of the South

Since its inception, green criminology has attempted to highlight instances of environmental degradation and destruction, as well as examine and analyse the causes thereof and contemplate the responses thereto. Efforts to reduce environmental crime and curb environmental harm, more generally, have not gone unimpeded, however. Activists around the world are being killed in record numbers trying to defend their land and protect the environment. In this article, I consider the role of socially engaged scholars who reject the idea or ideology of ‘neutral scientists’ in light of the risks faced by environmental defenders. As such, this article replies to the claims that activism and the production of knowledge must be clearly separated. To do so, this article draws upon examples from Latin America to underscore the importance of an ‘activist criminology’ (Belknap in Criminology 53(1):1–22. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12063, 2015) attuned to environmental harms and injustices perpetrated on those seeking to prevent the despoliation of the Earth.     

A note on the misconduct of academics in UK HEIs1

The article compares the employment regime for academics in UK HEIs with that of faculty in US HEIs. It considers, inter alia, ‘progressive discipline’, ‘at will contracts’, ‘the Model Statute’, ‘academic freedom’, ‘faculty misconduct’ and ‘academic underperformance’.     

Social harm future(s): exploring the potential of the social harm approach

The notion of social harm has sporadically interested critical criminologists as an alternative to the concept of crime. In particular, it has been viewed as a means to widen the rather narrow approach to harm that criminology offers. More recently, the publication of Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously has renewed interest in the notion of social harm. The book asserted a number of very valid reasons for a social harm approach that provoked a number of interesting critical responses. The article seeks to respond to five recurring questions: Should the social harm perspective move beyond criminology? If so, where should the perspective locate itself? From this position, how will the perspective continue to engage within ‘law and order’ debates and address the concerns of those affected by crime? If the notion of crime is problematic, how will the perspective form an alternative definition of harm? Moreover, without a notion of crime and the accompanying concept of criminal intent, how would the perspective allocate responsibility for harm? The article is not offering definitive answers to these questions, but possible directions for the perspective’s future development.     

Regulating CCTV?: We Can’t Solve Problems by Using the Same Kind of Thinking We Used When We Created Them

This paper considers the lack of a universal CCTV policy across the United Kingdom and Europe and how this apparent omission is being addressed in the context of increased surveillance, and the omnipresence of CCTV in particular. Special attention is paid to the role of academics within the apparently long, drawn-out process of a current move from fragmented to collective regulation. What it seems exists is individual, independent policy that implicates wider legislation. What it seems is desired is a more comprehensive and codified decree. Starting with the issues that underpin CCTV and surveillance in general, this paper acknowledges the opposing arguments that CCTV can be helpful to policing as those that demonstrate how well it can facilitate a means of social control. The paper moves to consider the possibility of a ‘surveillance policy’ applicable and effective for CCTV’s balanced regulation, and discusses the means by which this might be realised, paying special attention to who is involved and to what extent, especially where this involves academic input. Academic input to date is problematized on one hand on account of its arguably narrow scope (source/personnel) and the trends yet ostensible wavering it entails on the other. Therefore, the author’s reservations around the place of academics in the process, especially because they appear to be key to developments, whilst variously demonstrating both influential flippancy and seriousness, lead to the conclusion that there is difficulty with trying to solve the ‘problem’ with the same thinking that created it.     

DEVELOPMENT AND FRACTURE OF A DISCIPLINE: LEGACIES OF THE SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY AT BERKELEY

In the early twentieth century, the University of California—Berkeley opened its doors to police professionals for instruction in “police science.” This program ultimately developed into the full‐fledged School of Criminology, whose graduates helped shape American criminology and criminal justice until well into the 1970s. Scholarship at the School of Criminology eventually fractured into three distinct traditions: “Administrative criminology” applied scientific methods in pursuit of refining law enforcement practices, “law and society” coupled legal scholarship with social scientific methods, and “radical criminology” combined Marxist critiques of the state with community activism. Those scientific traditions relied on competing epistemic premises and normative aspirations, and they drew legitimacy from different sources. Drawing on oral histories and archival data permits a neo‐institutional analysis of how each of these criminological traditions emerged, acquired stability, and subsided. The Berkeley School of Criminology provides fertile ground to examine trends in the development of criminal justice as a profession, criminology as a discipline and its place in elite universities, the uncoupling of criminology from law and society scholarship, and criminal justice policy's disenchantment with the academy. These legacies highlight how the development of modern criminology and the professionalization of American law enforcement find precedent in events that originate at Berkeley.     

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.     

Seeing War as Criminal: Peace Activist Views and Critical Criminology

A hallmark of critical criminology is its critique of the traditional definition of crime. For decades, critical scholars have proposed humanistic definitions of crime that bring state violence into the purview of academic criminology—although outside of critical criminology this is a matter of great contentiousness. This study investigates the views of those involved in peace activism, but not in any way associated with academic criminology, about the application of the term ‘crime’ to war, specifically the recent US war on Iraq. Given that there is no existing research on this subject, the article also examines how peace activists define crime generally and whether they believe those responsible for the war should be regarded as war criminals. Not surprisingly, semi‐structured interviews with 13 anti‐war activists reveal significant support for elements of critical criminological definitions of crime but an unexpected concern on the part of some that the application of the term ‘crime’ to war could be counterproductive in efforts to stop state violence. The rationales for this concern, as well as those for other issues addressed in the study, are largely presented in the interviewees’ own words.     

The Measurement of Legitimacy: A Rush to Judgment?

In an important article on the methodological issues surrounding measuring of police legitimacy, Jackson and Bradford (Asian Journal of Criminology,https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-019-09289-w, 2019) adequately warn against the use of confirmatory factor analysis as an adjudication tool for differentiating the possible sources and constituent components of police legitimacy. However, in the process of arguing against the Sun et al.’s (Asian Journal of Criminology, 13, 275–291, 2018) measure of legitimacy, they inadvertently bring attention to a more foundational issue—How should scientists conduct research and test theories in various cultures? Furthermore, their argument against the alternative measuring of police legitimacy elucidates an extensive problem facing criminology—they have brought attention paid to the interrogation of operationalizing key constructs within criminology. We argue that Jackson and Bradford’s (2019) critiques of Sun et al.’s (2018) modeling and subsequent testing of police legitimacy in China are a bit overstated. Additionally, we contend that testing theories, such as police legitimacy, across cultures should be conducted both top-down and bottom-up—neither are necessarily contradictory. We urge readers to be the ultimate amicus curiae because this issue is not a concretely right-or-wrong type issue.

     

Women Legal Academics – A New Research Agenda?

Women academics have been the subject of suprisingly little academic research; this is particularly true of women legal academics. This article argues that it is important that research into women legal academics is carried out, not just to gain empirical evidence about the working lives of these women, but because in exploring these members of the 'academic tribe' of lawyers, important insights may be gained into the university as an institution, the development of law as a discipline, and the nature of law itself.     

Unjust Enrichment and Contract

Benedetti v Sawiris was concerned with the measure of a quantum meruit, and in particular whether a ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ measure should be preferred. The Supreme Court addressed the issue broadly in line with the approach in the mainstream academic literature on unjust enrichment, according to which this is a problem of how to measure benefit. The article argues that this unjust enrichment approach is misguided because it obscures the role of agreement and conflates transfer and exchange, and that a contractual analysis of the case would make the issues clearer and easier to resolve.     

The grammar of administrative justice values

The debate concerning administrative justice in the UK often involves reliance upon a certain set of values. Examples of such values include openness, confidentiality, timeliness, transparency, secrecy, fairness, efficiency, accountability, user-friendliness, consistency, participation, rationality and equal treatment. These values are often deployed, both in academic and policy contexts, without much precision. This produces confusion which can hamper debate. This article therefore argues there is a need to reflect on how these oft-used values are deployed, and consider the particular concerns which underlie them. In this sense, this article suggests there is a need to refine the grammar of administrative justice. This argument is demonstrated through an extended analysis of the value of ‘user-friendliness’: a site of emerging disagreement in recent years. It proposes that an important distinction must be drawn between two understandings of the value: the ‘accessibility’ and ‘consumerist’ understandings. This article concludes by suggesting that, going forward, it is important to consider whether the use of abstractions is helpful at all in administrative law and justice debates.     

Scope of jurisdiction online and the importance of messaging – lessons from Australia and the EU

Where a court makes an order, for example, requiring an Internet platform to block or remove content, it has several options. The order can be limited to content displayed locally, it can apply to that content globally, or something in-between. This – the matter of ‘scope of jurisdiction’ – is gaining increasing attention and was the central issue in two recent decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).In this article, I examine those two decisions. I then compare that to how Australian courts have dealt with scope of jurisdiction and I map out what we can learn from these cases. In doing so, I place emphasis on the importance of messaging and the need for judicial activism.     

Josine Junger-Tas: The Life and Works of a Compassionate Criminologist

This article is the editorial introduction to the special issue of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research Compassionate Criminology: The Legacy of Josine Junger-Tas (1929–2011). The article consists of four parts and an Appendix (i.e., the bibliography of her publications). In the first section, we provide a brief overview of the highlights of her professional career of 40-plus years, including her contributions to the institutionalization of European criminology. The second section discusses how her focus on comparative criminology and policy relevance run as a red thread through her work as a criminologist. The third part centers around Junger-Tas’s consistent concern with the responsibility of scholars and researchers to “do the right thing” and to speak out for the most vulnerable parts of the population (youth in particular). We believe that as a public criminologist avant la lettre Junger-Tas’s main heritage lies in drawing the contours of what may be called evidence-based compassionate criminology. The fourth section provides a brief introduction to the seven articles in this special issue.     

A tale of targeted violence in Hashimpura: the Delhi High Court on recognition,relations and responses

On 31 October 2018, Justice Dr S Muralidhar (then) at the Delhi High Court convicted 16 members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) for, inter alia, the murder of 38 Muslim residents of Hashimpura, a neighbourhood in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh in the summer of 1987. In so doing, he described the events that unfolded in Hashimpura as the ‘targeted killing’ of ‘members of a particular minority community.’ The judicial recognition of targeted violence in contemporary Indian society forms the focus of the present article. The article contends that Muralidhar J’s reference to targeted violence paves way for the recognition of an important juridical concept that warrants further academic and legal engagement. By adopting a relational approach, I argue that the conceptual utility of the category of targeted violence lies in its ability to unmask the social relations that it implicates. Targeted violence is not aimed at individual actors, but social relations between perpetrators, individual victims and those who share the victims’ minority identity. Committed to the legal recognition of social experiences, I demonstrate how the category of targeted violence accurately reflects the experiences of and relations between different social actors. I further build a case for why and how legal and judicial responses to targeted violence ought to be informed and shaped by a recognition of its relational harms.

     

Do you think some veterans are receiving a “get out of jail free” card? Examining support for Veterans Treatment Court as a function of mental health and offense type

Journal of Experimental Criminology - To investigate if and how support for Veterans Treatment Court changed as a consequence of the veteran’s mental health label (PTSD, war injury, no mental...