779 more “critical” approach of criminology, and questioning of criminology's relation to the state and criminal justice. Criticalcriminology itself is based upon the idea that causes of crime are the socio-economic forces operating within society illuminating struggle for dominance among competing social groups (classes, gender, race/ethnicity, religion, age, sexuality and disability). Society is held together by the power, authority, and coercion of dominant groups over subordinate groups. The most powerful members of dominant groups create the rules for success and opportunity in society, often denying subordinate groups success and opportunities and ensuring that the powerful continue to monopolise power, privilege, and authority. ‘Left idealism’ is a key theory within criticalcriminology, drawing its ideas from a basic Marxist perspective. For Karl Marx (1818-1883), modern capitalist societies were controlled by a wealthy few (bourgeoisie) who controlled the means of production (factories, raw materials, equipment, technology, etc.) while everyone else (the proletariat) was reduced to the lot of being wage labourers (Phillipson 1998). While Marx himself never really addressed in detail the criminal justice system’s specific role in keeping such a system in place, from his writings a radical tradition has emerged (Powell 2005). On the other hand, left realism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the crime victims’ movement of that decade. Victims forced criminologists to recognize that the primary victims of crime are not the wealthy, but the poor. Most predatory crimes are not “revolutionary” acts; they are attacks on family members and neighbourhood residents. Left realists recognize that the criminal justice system must act to stop criminal victimization without regard to the class of the perpetrators. At the same time, continued focus on the crimes committed by the rich and powerful is warranted. White collar and business related crimes remain important.
What was really strange for us, sort of coming back a little bit, was a positivist revanchism, because there was a period of time when we were almost utterly sure that we had hammered them; we had done them; that it would not return again. It was silly. There was a time when it’d never ever seem to emerge. And there was an interesting thing which comes back to the transatlantic crossing, which if you look at American and look at British criminology is very, very, very different and this is very strange because these are the two countries with the largest proportion of infrastructure of research, teaching and all that sort of thing and they come out with different results, and that doesn’t happen with astrophysics or anything like that. And if you look at the level of cross‐referencing between, say, The British Journal of Criminology and Criminology, it’s about two per cent. You can’t imagine a journal of cardiology having this problem, right? So it suggests a question about science and the possibility of a scientific study of crime. This strange positivism has taken over here on a massive scale. It would be wrong to suggest that it had anything like the purchase of the Open University, which is probably the largest distance‐learning university in the world, which is totally and utterly to the left. If you look at most of the major departments of criminology, apart from Cambridge – which always was a government department anyway, so you don’t expect much from it – criticalcriminology is still a very, very strong current. Here, in the United States, it’s not at all; it’s a little ghetto. It is a tolerated ghetto within the American Society of Criminology.
With this context in mind what emerges from our review of three texts in criticalcriminology is precisely the essence of Lemert’s quote with which we opened our essay: are there ‘clean, strong explanations’ that might enable critical social scientists – in criminology or otherwise – to connect the intricate and intimate details of people’s lived realities with the large scale, ‘global’ patterns and forces that solidify the structures of production, consumption and exchange and the gross inequalities of access, opportunity and engagement that these signal? If the social world comprises a disparate disconnection of dissonant realities, how is it possible to say anything at all critical about crime, justice and social order? The challenge facing ‘…those who accept responsibility to tell the truth of the world in order to imagine a better one’ (Lemert, 1995: 198) is how to nurture the kernel of social hope ‘in the rocky ground of social differences’ (ibid: 201).
However, do changes to penal modernity adequately explain the gendered and racialised outcomes of the current increases in penal severity? Why is it that Indigenous people and women have seen their imprisonment rates increase more rapidly than other groups? Discourses of modernity have been criticized by post colonial theorists for their Eurocentric bias and lack of consideration of the role of colonialism (Loomba 1998). More specifically, the application of postcolonial theory to criminology and penology may require us to re-evaluate the way we conceptualise particular problems. For example, the 'mass incarceration' argument (Garland 2001b) rests on an assumption there was a rupture or break between post war liberal welfare policies and the more recent prioritisation of retribution and incapacitation. Yet Blagg (2008) indicates that this periodisation does not necessarily transfer to colonial settings where Indigenous peoples were never fully included as citizens in the postwar welfare state. Following Said, Blagg (2008) argues for a ‘contrapuntal’ dynamic that stresses continuities in control over marginalised peoples, and an acknowledgment that radically divergent and bifurcated practices based on race, gender and colonial status have operated and continue to operate within criminal justice systems. The question for us is how do we understand racially bifurcated modalities of punishment through the lens of gendered colonial relations?
The second lesson which rural criminology can teach criticalcriminology comes from research by Barclay (2003), Basran, Gill and MacLean (1995), Bunei, Rono and Chessa (2013), McElwee et al. (2011), Smith (2004), Walters (2004, 2006) and White (2011), among others. These studies should serve as a reminder that food producers themselves can be the offenders, participating in multiple forms of collective efficacy. They steal, they violate environmental regulations, they exploit labour, and they engage in other clandestine, illegal operations. Furthermore, some of the illegal behaviours of farmers are illustrative of ‘crimes of the powerful’. Larger, corporate (both non‐family owned and family owned) agricultural operations not only displace smaller, family‐based farms in much the same way franchises (that is, Wal‐ marting) are accused of under‐cutting family‐owned businesses in rural communities, they may also maximize profit at the expense of the environment, their neighbours, and their workers. Even smaller, family owned farm operations can be examined from the perspective that they are the local representatives or agents of a capitalist system which is exploiting and causing harm (White 2011) to both labour and land. Regardless of farm size and other circumstances, there has been little attention paid to agricultural crime by critical criminologists, and there should be much more.
The news media are a defining feature of the crime and justice landscape. Especially today in a globalised context of hyper-mediatisation and high crime consciousness, news media representations are key indicators of the nature and extent of crime, the appropriateness and efficacy of criminal justice, and the wider state of the nation. Yet serious attention to news media within criminology has historically been patchy and recently appears alarmingly to have dropped off the radar. This chapter discusses the major theoretical issues and debates that have shaped what might loosely be termed news media criminology in Britain. It identifies key interventions, situating them both theoretically and chronologically in order to document the development of the field. What becomes apparent is just how few of the definitive interventions have come from within criminology. From its origins in the 1960s, the field of news media criminology was characterised by prolific and engaged research and a voracious interdisciplinarity that cut across the emerging areas of criticalcriminology, sociology of mass communications, media studies and cultural studies. Today, only research on content abounds and, as criminology has made the transition from field to discipline, that original enthusiasm for interdisciplinarity has been replaced with disciplinisation and self- referentialism.
By combining green southern criminology and criticalcriminology, this study highlights the need to connect environmental harm, criminal agencies’ bias and the socio-economic context in which these phenomena occur, considering the specific characteristics and resources of the Global South. Particularly, this approach suggests that it might be enriching to delve into green southern criminology topics through the notion of criminal selectivity, which helps expose the biased functioning of the criminal justice system. Criminal selectivity runs through two mechanisms: over-criminalisation and under-criminalisation. When focusing specifically on green crimes, criminal selectivity exposes that crime control is intensively used to the detriment of Indigenous peoples, despite the fact that their protests do not produce significant social harm and are framed within constitutional rights (over-criminalisation). Conversely, the criminal justice system is not used to prosecute green harms or the unlawful use of force against native peoples by law enforcement agencies, despite of the severe harm of those behaviours on the environment and the lives and physical integrity of communities (under-criminalisation).
Dr Emily Hart is a Lecturer in Criminology and has been teaching Criminology and Sociology in Higher Education for a number of years; her research interests broadly surround women and crime, but more specifically women prisoners, their resettlement and desistance and she has published in this area. Emily previously taught at the University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University before taking up her post at Liverpool Hope in 2012.
I propose that administrative criminology deserves a much more positive appraisal than it has been given to date. To anticipate what follows, SCP (and much other government research activity in the UK in the 1960s through to the 1990s) was largely self-generated rather than imposed; it was influential and often controversial. In-house government researchers were competent (testi- fied by the fact that many now hold several of the senior academic posts in universities), and were happy to priori- tise the task of informing policy over that of extending esoteric academic debate. They were also brought to heel as regards ensuring that what they knew was effectively and clearly communicated. After the turn of the century, a number of changes in the organisation of research in the Home Office, including control of the research budget being moved from researchers to policy divisions, substantially increased the influence the policy centre had on the nature of research to be supported, and weak- ened professional links between in-house researchers and outside academics. Relationships were also fractured by the burden of evaluating the huge, ill-fated 1999 Crime Reduction Programme. Further strains came from having research resources diverted to simply measuring whether targets imposed by Performance Management were being met. However, I will argue that any recent ‘watering down’ of administrative criminology says more about increasing managerialism and accountability at the policy centre than what can be delivered in a more benign research environment. Finally, I suggest that administra- tive criminology should be credited for work that ‘keeps the criminological ball rolling’ in other ways. For instance, it provides important knowledge from expen- sive, government-funded data-gathering exercises such as victimisation or offender surveys. I also see it as encompassing the collection of essential routine adminis- trative, statistical data (the number of people arrested, the number taken to court, etc.), which critics of admin- istrative criminology seem to put in the firing line along- side research under an administrative criminology banner. 4
propositions, assumptions, empirical validity, and policy implications of these criminological theories, as well as the social context in which they were developed, will be examined. In addition, the ability of these theories to explain crime rates across different countries and cultures will be examined. Other significant issues in criminology such as the measurement and extent of crime, the role of demographics (age, race, gender, social class) in the causation of and reaction to crime, and explanations of specific crime types such as substance abuse and white collar crime will also be discussed.
The criminal sociologist Enrico Ferri advances in positivist perspective in criminology, proposing a new form of determinism where the causes of crime are at once organic and moral (Ferri, 1999). The abnormality of the offender would be essentially a moral failure, observable from the observation of the habits, behaviors, and especially of his vices. The society is divided into three different classes of individuals: (i) honest men by organic constitution and moral sense, (ii) atavistic individuals, abnormal organization of pathological and degenerative, and (iii) an intermediate class of occasional criminals. Next to take these classes, the criminologist should assess the degree of temibility - or danger - of the subject. Taking the crime as a sign of abnormality of the subject, the evaluation based on the severity of the offense and the personality of the subject would be necessary to determine the amount of harm that can be expected to come from this individual behavior.
This section of the centennial volume’s second issue is devoted to republishing articles from the early pages of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (JCLC or Journal) that speak to the history of the Journal and its perennial commitment to leading scholarship. These five pieces attempt to achieve the second half of this dual aim by showing how, nearly a century ago, our authors considered issues that dominate recent public discourse. These articles confront today’s most controversial and important matters, from immigration to corporate responsibility, and contemporary debate echoes the concerns and themes of these historic writings. In addition, the historic writings are illustrative of the core debates of our society and the value they have for addressing those debates that continue to the present. Moreover, the authors whose works are reprinted herein very much embody the Journal’s institutional aims and evolution.
As Jennifer Devroye recounts in her article, The Rise and Fall of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, the organizers of the National Conference, particularly then-Dean of Northwestern Law, John H. Wigmore, hoped to modernize criminal law. 2 To that end, Dean Wigmore,
Examines crime, crime control and crime prevention from a comparative perspective. A number of key countries are analyzed to identity innovative practices in policing, the administration of justice, and corrections, with an eye on their applicability, if any, to criminal justice practices in the United States. Developments in select countries are examined to learn critical lessons about the interplay between culture, types of government, quality of life, and levels and types of crimes. Islamic justice systems are explored to enrich our knowledge of cultural differences and their effects on crime control. Points of divergence between various countries and the United States are analyzed to assess differences in perception regarding the causes of crime and differences in the effectiveness of crime prevention, rehabilitation and punishment efforts. We will furthermore investigate transnational and international crime problems, focusing on terrorism, nuclear weapons, organized crime and drug smuggling. Finally, the course will examine current multi-national efforts in controlling crime problems.
According to the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Institute (UNICRI) as environmental crimes can be considered the illegal dumping of house waste, the circulation and discarding of toxic and nuclear waste, deforestation, environmental contamination, illegal trading of material that decrease the quantity of ozone in the atmosphere, illegal hunting and trading of animal species under the threat of extinction [36 p. 316 – 19]. All the above categories of environmental crimes are not considered stricto senso as such [38 p. 36]. As very well Tsouramanis  describes the emission of carbon dioxide by a private vehicle is harmful only when it is added to that of other vehicles. In this sense, should carbon dioxide emission of one vehicle be considered criminal? The fact that traditionally environmental offences are committed by upper class groups (white collar crimes and particularly business or corporate crimes) and that lower-classes are considered the bearers of such offences is another aspect discussed by green criminologists [31 p. 205] and this is another issue suggesting that environmental criminality is subject to interpretation which in turn, means that green criminology should factor in a variety of criteria namely political, economic, legislative and – as suggested in the following section - cultural.