‘Crossing the line’: Criminological expertise, policy advice and the ‘quarrelling society’

In October 2009, Professor David Nutt, eminent neuropsychopharmacologist and world leading expert on drugs, was dismissed as Chair of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for comments he made at the Centre of Crime and Justice Studies Eve Saville lecture. This article considers the role of evidence in political decision making through the case of David Nutt. It is argued that the status of expert knowledge is in crisis both for the natural and the social sciences. We examine the role of the criminological advisor within emerging discourses of public criminology and suggest that high-stakes political issues can open up unprecedented opportunities for critical voices to engage in unbridled critique and to mobilise movements of dissent

Deviant Knowledge

The ability to openly challenge and express criticism of governing authorities is a cornerstone of progressive democratic societies. To ‘speak truth to power’ generates accountability and transparency where elected and appointed officials, and their governing rationalities and ideologies, are questioned and held to account. However, critical voices of dissent are increasingly marginalized, suppressed and threatened. Recent international headlines, such as, ‘World press freedoms have deteriorated …warning of a new era of propaganda’ (Reporters Without Borders, 2016); ‘Art is under Threat: Oppression against Freedom of Expression is Dangerously High’ (Freemuse, 2016); ‘The demise of academic freedom. When politically correct “speech police” are given the upper hand’ (Walpin, 2015), all attest to the ways that democratic freedoms in speech and artistic expression are under attack and subjected to systematic censorship and erosion. Such attacks on thought and expression have been witnessed in various historical regimes underpinned by a politics of intolerance and fear. More recently, the post 9-11 period has observed how commentators critical of the ‘war on terror’ have been silenced, neutralized and ‘dismissed as traitorous acts of sedition’ (Walters, 2003:132-134). For some commentators the demise of civil liberties is associated with heightened terrorist threats and the perceived need to regulate and monitor ‘offensive speech’. For Schoenwald (2001) the ‘authoritarian ascendency’ or the ‘rise of modern American conservatism’ has had a pervasive influence on media, global economics, political party politics, and the production of knowledge. Therefore, to offend with words or creative expression is seen as a catalyst that may incite radical fundamentalism and disrupt the social order. This position is examined comprehensively in Mike Hume’s influential book Trigger Warning. Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?, where he argues that: ‘Everybody in Western public life claims to support free speech in principle. Yet in practice free speech is on the endangered list. Freedom of expression today is like one of those exotic animals that everybody says they love, but that still appear to be heading inexorably towards extinction. Everywhere from the internet to the universities, from football to the theatrical stage, from out on the streets to inside our own minds, we are allowing the hard-won right to freedom of expression to be reined in and undermined’ (Hume, 2015:12). If academics, journalists, artists and other critical commentators are prevented from openly challenging and critiquing governing authorities, then how are the ruling elites held accountable for their decisions, policies and actions? Along these lines, - how are notions of democracy, human rights, social justice and humanitarianism advanced and progressed for the global good? If, as Hume (2015) argues, free speech is becoming constructed as a form of ‘extremism’ - as a danger to social and political stability – then those who exercise democratic rights to critical free speech also become demarcated as ‘extremists’ or ‘deviants’ and the words and values they disseminate are indeed forms of ‘deviant knowledge’

3D printing, policing and crime

This article examines the implications of advanced manufacturing technology, more commonly known as three dimensional (3D) printing, for policing and crime, notably the dissemination of digital design files and the use of 3D printers to produce illicit firearms. The application and rapid evolution of 3D printing technology has created new challenges for law and regulation, and represents an interesting security paradox, albeit one which until now has received scant attention in the criminological or policing literature. On the one hand, 3D printing denotes a significant shift in the creation and use of objects, ranging from food to body parts, and more controversially, weaponry. On the other hand, the use of this technology to create items such as firearms and weapons signifies a potential safety, security, and legal challenge. We explore the emergence of 3D printing and its use to create firearms along with the theoretical challenges to legal design and enforcement presented by this decentralised technology. We also present some empirical data on instances of 3D printed firearms and firearm parts being detected internationally, and some jurisdictions’ legal and policy responses. We conclude by considering that any regulation of 3D printed firearms must be based on a robust evidence base and take proper account of citizens’ rights, but also that any national regulation will be in tension with the transnational and decentralised nature of the technology

Evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court Pilot 2003-2005 - Research Findings

A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003. It targeted alleged offenders aged 16 and 17 who were resident in areas of North or South Lanarkshire; had three separate incidents of offending resulting in a criminal charge in the previous six months or whose contextual background suggested a referral to the Youth Court would reduce the risk of re-offending and promote community safety; and were appearing summarily before Hamilton Sheriff Court. The main aim of the Youth Court was to reduce the frequency and seriousness of offending by 16 and 17 year olds through targeted and prompt disposals with judicial supervision and continuing social work involvement

Evaluation of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court Pilot - Research Findings

A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. It is targeted on alleged offenders aged 16 and 17 (and appropriate 15 year olds) who are resident in areas of North Lanarkshire and are appearing summarily before Airdrie Sheriff Court. The main aim of the Youth Court is to reduce the frequency and seriousness of offending by 16 and 17 year olds through targeted and prompt disposals with judicial supervision and continuing social work involvement

Evaluation of the Airdrie and Hamilton Youth Court Pilots

Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Although introduced as one of a number of measures aimed at responding more effectively to youth crime (including young people dealt with through the Children’s Hearings System), the Youth Courts were intended for young people who would otherwise have been dealt with in the adult Sheriff Summary Court. The objectives of the pilot Youth Courts were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. Evaluation of the Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilots suggested that they had been successful in meeting the objectives set for them by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Both were tightly run courts that dealt with a heavy volume of business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements included the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, the reduction in trials, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Courts was dependent upon effective teamwork among the relevant agencies and professionals concerned. Good information sharing, liaison and communication appeared to exist across agencies and the procedures that were in place to facilitate the sharing of information seemed to be working well. This was also facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication, and in the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Groups to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis. However, whether Youth Courts are required in Scotland or whether procedural improvement were possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Courts should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Courts were intended. This suggested the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned

Evaluation of the Airdrie and Hamilton Youth Court Pilots - Research findings

Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. They are targeted at alleged offenders aged 16 and 17 (and appropriate 15 year olds) who are resident in areas of North and South Lanarkshire and are appearing summarily before the Sheriff Courts. Their main aims are to reduce the frequency and seriousness of offending through targeted and prompt disposals with judicial supervision and continuing social work involvement

Beyond 'Criminology vs. Zemiology': Reconciling crime with social harm

Since its emergence at the start of the twenty-first century, zemiology and the field of harm studies more generally, has borne an ambiguous and, at times, seemingly antipathetic relationship with the better-established field of criminology. Whilst the tension between the perspectives is, at times, overstated, attempts to reconcile the perspectives have also proved problematic, such that, at present, it appears that they risk either becoming polarized into mutually antagonistic projects, or harmonized to the point that zemiology is simply co-opted within criminology. Whilst tempting to view this as nothing more than an academic squabble, it is the central argument put forward in this chapter that the current trend towards either polariziaton or harmonization of the criminological and zemiological projects, risks impoverishing both perspectives, both intellectually and, more fundamentally, in terms of their capacity to effect meaningful social change. To this end, this chapter offers a critical reflection of recent attempts to reconcile the social harm perspective with criminology, focussing in particular on Majid Yar’s attempts to do so using the concept of ‘recognition’ derived from critical theory. It is suggested that such attempts, whilst important in the contribution they make to developing a theory of harm, are necessarily flawed by their reliance on an implicit assumption of a shared conception of harm underpinning both the concept of ‘crime’ and ‘social harm’. By contrast, it is the central argument put forward in this chapter that zemiology and criminology are best understood as divergent normative projects which, whilst sharing many of the same goals with regards to the improvement of the criminal justice system and the tackling of social problems, differ primarily in the means by which they seek to achieve these. Therefore, rather than denying this debate through the collapsing of one perspective into the other, or polarizing them into hostiles camps, it is only by recognising the nature of this debate and fostering dialogue between the perspectives that we can achieve our shared goals and effect meaningful change

Crime, deviance and society: an introduction to sociological criminology

Divulgação dos SUMÁRIOS das obras recentemente incorporadas ao acervo da Biblioteca Ministro Oscar Saraiva do STJ. Em respeito à Lei de Direitos Autorais, não disponibilizamos a obra na íntegra.Localização na estante: 343.9 C931

The commodification and exploitation of fresh water: Property, human rights and green criminology

In recent years, both developing and industrialised societies have experienced riots and civil unrest over the corporate exploitation of fresh water. Water conflicts increase as water scarcity rises and the unsustainable use of fresh water will continue to have profound implications for sustainable development and the realisation of human rights. Rather than states adopting more costly water conservation strategies or implementing efficient water technologies, corporations are exploiting natural resources in what has been described as the “privatization of water”. By using legal doctrines, states and corporations construct fresh water sources as something that can be owned or leased. For some regions, the privatization of water has enabled corporations and corrupt states to exploit a fundamental human right. Arguing that such matters are of relevance to criminology, which should be concerned with fundamental environmental and human rights, this article adopts a green criminological perspective and draws upon Treadmill of Production theory