The Expanding Boundaries of Crime Control: Governing Security through Regulation

2018 ◽  
Vol 679 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Gurinskaya ◽  
Mahesh k. Nalla
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Narrow Focus

The governance of crime and security has undergone major transformations in recent decades. Several important shifts in the rationale and logic of crime control have led to a growth in regulatory practices and an expansion of regulatory provisions. As a result, the scope of actors who regulate behaviors have widened as have the types of tools to facilitate the governance of crime and security also expanded. We argue that the expansion of the boundaries of crime control is facilitated through a wide variety of criminal justice and non-criminal-justice regulatory tools to tackle both social problems and crime. We suggest that the time has come for criminologists to look beyond criminology’s traditional narrow focus on criminal law and the criminal justice apparatus utilized for crime control and engage in the broader discourse of regulation and governance of crime and security.

A Research Evaluation of the Israeli New Pretrial Detention Act

2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 266-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagit Lernau
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Law System ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
The Law

One of the most influential attempts to describe and comprehend the criminal law system is Packer's celebrated notion regarding the “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System.” Packer regards the criminal justice process as an image constantly shifting between two conflicting models — the “Crime Control Model” and the “Due Process Model” of criminal law. The first model strives to create an effective criminal system that will protect society's right to peace and safety. This aim may be achieved by emphasizing the earlier, informal stages in the law enforcement procedure, namely, police investigation and the decision to prosecute. The second model aims to ensure that the law enforcement process, which is one of the most coercive powers of the state, will be conducted in a lawful manner that will protect suspects and defendants from both intentional wrongdoing and from unintentional mistakes.

Criminalization or instrumentalism? New trends in the field of border criminology

2021 ◽  
pp. 136248062110091
Author(s):  
José A Brandariz
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Border Control ◽  
Immigration Enforcement

The crimmigration literature has underlined the increasing merging of criminal law and immigration law practices and procedures. Border criminology literature, in turn, has recently scrutinized the penal scenario in which this alleged fusion is taking place. Both pieces of scholarship, though, largely overlook the agonistic coexistence of border control interests and crime prevention aims, as well as the preference given to immigration enforcement arrangements over criminal law procedures in many jurisdictions. By drawing on a number of cases mainly—albeit not exclusively—taken from Spanish crimmigration policies, this article examines what may be called the ‘instrumentalism’ strategies that are notably transforming crime control practices targeting noncitizens, and the criminal justice system in its entirety.

A Truce in Criminal Law’s Distributive Principle Wars?

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-583
Author(s):  
Paul H. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
A Value ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Past Wrongs

Crime-control utilitarians and retributivist philosophers have long been at war over the appropriate distributive principle for criminal liability and punishment, with little apparent possibility of reconciliation between the two. In the utilitarians’ view, the imposition of punishment can be justified only by the practical benefit that it provides: avoiding future crime. In the retributivists’ view, doing justice for past wrongs is a value in itself that requires no further justification. The competing approaches simply use different currencies: fighting future crime versus doing justice for past wrongs. It is argued here that the two are in fact reconcilable, in a fashion. We cannot declare a winner in the distributive principle wars but something more like a truce. Specifically, good utilitarians ought to support a distributive principle based upon desert because the empirical evidence suggests that doing justice for past wrongdoing is likely the most effective and efficient means of controlling future crime. A criminal justice system perceived by the community as conflicting with its principles of justice provokes resistance and subversion, whereas a criminal justice system that earns a reputation for reliably doing justice is one whose moral credibility inspires deference, assistance, and acquiescence, and is more likely to have citizens internalize its norms of what is truly condemnable conduct. Retributivists ought to support empirical desert as a distributive principle because, while it is indeed distinct from deontological desert, there exists an enormous overlap between the two, and it seems likely that empirical desert may be the best practical approximation of deontological desert. Indeed, some philosophers would argue that the two are necessarily the same.

scholarly journals Creating and Maintaining Structural Hindrances to Criminal Justice Control – A Policy Analysis on the Normalisation of Parental Violence as a Crime in Finland

2021 ◽  
pp. 096466392110208
Author(s):  
Riikka Kotanen
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Interpersonal Violence ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Parental Violence ◽  
Control Policies ◽  
And Control

In the context of home, violence remains more accepted when committed against children than adults. Normalisation of parental violence has been documented in attitudinal surveys, professional practices, and legal regulation. For example, in many countries violent disciplining of children is the only legal form of interpersonal violence. This study explores the societal invisibility and normalisation of parental violence as a crime by analysing legislation and control policies regulating the division of labour and involvement between social welfare and criminal justice authorities. An empirical case study from Finland, where all forms of parental violence were legally prohibited in 1983, is used to elucidate the divergence between (criminal) law and control policies. The analysis demonstrates how normalisation operates at the policy-level where, within the same system of control that criminalised these acts, structural hindrances are built to prevent criminal justice interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document