Simple Rhetoric and Complex Punitiveness: Federal Criminal Justice Responses to White-Collar Criminality

Abstract

Though criminological literature shows that the manifestation of punitiveness in the criminal justice system is complex, it rarely differentiates between responses to different kinds of crimes. This constitutes a significant gap in knowledge, as it is widely believed that white-collar crimes are treated leniently. In light of the “heating up” of political rhetoric, the expansion of federal criminal law, and the increased maximum punishments on conviction, the article aims to explore whether prosecutorial and judicial responses to white-collar crimes have become more punitive, employing rarely used datasets from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) between 1996 and 2014. It is demonstrated that these responses are more complex and less consistently punitive than the rhetoric and policies advanced by politicians. It endeavors to capture the complexity of punitiveness in practice by measuring numerous variables and multiple points in the criminal justice process, studying punitiveness from multiple angles, using prosecution and sentencing data.     

The European Parliament and Comitology: On the Road to Nowhere?

The European Parliament has generally been deeply distrustful of the comitology system, primarily on the grounds that it allows the national administrations to undermine its supervisory role in the area of implementing legislation. Parliament has therefore sought to use the political, budgetary and jurisdictional means at its disposal to counteract the spread of comitology, or at least to promote the less intrusive forms of committee procedure. These initiatives have not, for the most part, been wholly successful; neither the interinstitutional agreements nor Parliament's arguments before the Court of Justice have produced the results it had hoped for. Parliament has been able, however, to use its Maastricht powers to influence the choice of committee procedure included in legislation adopted under codecision, and its budgetary tactics have forced the Commission to rationalise somewhat the annual expenditure on committees of all kinds and to bring a modicum of transparency into their operation. The imminence of the intergovernmental conference led to a suspension of hostilities towards the end of 1996.     

Writing,Space and Authority: Producing and Critiquing Settler Jurisdiction in Western Australia

On the edge of Stirling Gardens in central Perth, Western Australia, five large, old-fashioned pen nibs stand in a curved line, their tips in the ground. Anne Neil’s sculpture, Memory Markers, commemorates the history of this site, which includes the Supreme Court. Taking this sculpture as an emblem of writing, which in the context of its setting highlights the relationship between literature and law, this article explores the image of the pen in the ground. As a symbol of literacy, it evokes the powerful network of discourses—particularly law, science and religion—that underwrote the imperial project. It signals, in Michele Grossman’s terms, “the event of literacy [that] radically interrupts and disrupts—but never eliminates—pre-existing Aboriginal epistemologies”. The article goes on to explore the sculpture as a symbol of the assertion of jurisdiction, the speaking of law in and over colonised space. It analyses a group of written texts associated with this site, from colonial legal assertions of jurisdiction over Aboriginal people in Edward Landor’s The Bushman (1847), through a proclamation under the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA), to Stephen Kinnane’s Indigenous family memoir of life under that act, Shadow Lines (2004).