A number of authors have remarked upon growing similarities between the criminal justice systems of western industrialized countries, and in particular, the apparent spread of penal policies associated with the USA to other liberal democracies (Christie, 2000; Nellis, 2000; Garland, 2001; Jones and Newburn, 2002a). Two general approaches to describing and explaining such developments can be identified in the literature, which may be termed `structuralist' and `agency-led' respectively. The former approach links similar developments in crime control policy and discourse in different jurisdictions to deeper cultural and structural changes being experienced in all `late modern' capitalist societies. By contrast, the latter approach focuses more directly upon the arena of political decision making, and the incidence of policy transfer and imitation. This article argues that both these approaches would gain much from a more complex consideration of what `policy' is, and, in particular, where it comes from. More detailed empirical studies of the process of penal policy formation in different countries are a vital precondition to better understanding of how changes in social routines and cultural sensibilities are reflected in key political decisions. This is illustrated by consideration of three high-profile examples of British penal policy developments in recent years, all of which have been associated with similar changes in the USA. These are privatized corrections, `zero tolerance' policing strategies and the registration of sex offenders. We argue that these examples highlight the need for both broad generalizing studies of the structural and cultural preconditions for certain policy developments, and detailed studies of the process of criminal justice policy making.
The Value of Understanding the Human Side of Precautionary Behavior for Criminology and Crime Control Policy: The 2021 Bruce Smith Sr. Award Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
