Do the experiential and deterrent effect operate differently across gender?

Deterrence research showed that successful criminal episodes tended to erode the effect of sanction risks. In particular, experience with offending—especially offending without punishment—was believed to cause individuals to lower their unrealistically high expectations of sanction risk. At the same time, other research showed that deterrence could work for some individuals such that high perceptions of sanction certainty tended to inhibit future episodes of criminal activity. One unanswered question was the extent to which these ‘experiential’ and ‘deterrent’ effects operated differently across gender. Self-reported survey information on over 2,000 adolescents was employed to examine whether the experiential and deterrent effects varied across gender. Results indicated more similarities than differences linking deterrent and experiential effects to self-reported delinquency. Future research directions are outlined.     

A Wider Range of Friends: Multi‐speed Organising during the 2015 Labour Leadership Contest

The British Labour party's recent adoption of a partially open primary for the selection of its leader conforms to a trend seen across many European political parties of increasing rights and privileges in internal party decision‐making and expanding opportunities for more loosely affiliated supporters to participate in party activity. This dual trend can be seen as a response to changes in the membership environment, greater individualisation of political participation and growth in social movement politics and online activism. Yet as much as parties are responding to a changed membership environment, they are also driving that change, increasingly blurring the distinction between members and supporters. This article examines the recent impact of this change within the British Labour party and argues that, in line with Susan Scarrow's theory of ‘multi‐speed’ membership, the Labour party's experiment in expanding affiliation options has led directly to a tension in locating the source of authority within the party, creating a challenge for its new leader in accommodating his new supporters within his party's representative traditions.     

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?