scholarly journals Unravelling the ‘crimmigration knot’: Penal subjectivities, punishment and the censure machine

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Di Molfetta ◽  
Jelmer Brouwer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Social Exclusion ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Border Control ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Migration Policies ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Hybrid Forms

This article explores the challenges that (cr)immigration practices pose to draw the boundaries of punishment by examining foreign national prisoners’ penal subjectivities. More exclusionary and draconian migration policies have blurred the boundaries between border control and crime control, creating hybrid forms of punishment that, even if officially claimed as measures outside the criminal justice realm, inflict pain and communicate censure. Drawing on 37 in-depth interviews with foreign national prisoners facing expulsion in the Dutch penitentiary facility of Ter Apel, we detail how hybrid (cr)immigration practices are capable of imposing and delivering meanings that go well behind rooted significances and aims of administrative measures. Traditionally designed with preventive purposes, administrative measures have now become part of a project of social exclusion and reaffirmation of the worth of citizenship. This circumstance raises problematic questions for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in dealing with non-citizens.

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 Trust Toward the Criminal Justice System Among Swedish Roma: A Mixed-Methodology Approach

2020 ◽  
pp. 215336872093040
Author(s):  
Simon Wallengren ◽  
Anders Wigerfelt ◽  
Berit Wigerfelt ◽  
Caroline Mellgren
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Mixed Methodology ◽  
Minority Populations ◽  
Cultural Effects ◽  
Historical Processes ◽  
System 2 ◽  
Willingness To Report ◽  
Depth Interviews

Minority populations’ trust toward the criminal justice system is understudied in many parts of Europe, including Sweden. This article will contribute to this field by examining the trust in the criminal justice system among the Roma community in Sweden. The aim of the study was to (1) estimate the Roma community’s trust toward the criminal justice system, (2) examine what factors influence the community’s trust toward the criminal justice system, and (3) analyze whether trust toward the authorities influences the Roma community’s willingness to report victimization. The study used a mixed-methodology design in combining survey data ( n = 610) with in-depth interviews ( N = 30). The findings show that the respondents have a low level of trust in the criminal justice system authorities. According to the regression analysis, the strongest predictor of trust was shown to be explained by the respondent’s perception of procedural unfairness. Qualitative findings supported these results while also highlighting cultural effects and historical processes that explain the community’s lack of trust. Finally, trust in the authorities seems to be an important factor that influences crime reporting.

Opioids and the Criminal Justice System: New Challenges Posed by the Modern Opioid Epidemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Caulkins ◽  
Anne Gould ◽  
Bryce Pardo ◽  
Peter Reuter ◽  
Bradley D. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
New Challenges

The traditional US heroin market has transformed into a broader illegal opioid market, dominated first by prescription opioids (PO) and now also by fentanyl and other synthetic opioids (FOSO). Understanding of opioid-use disorder (OUD) has also transformed from being seen as a driver of crime to a medical condition whose sufferers deserve treatment. This creates new challenges and opportunities for the criminal justice system (CJS). Addressing inmates’ OUD is a core responsibility, including preventing overdose after release. Treatment can be supported by diversion programs (e.g., drug courts, among others) and by providing medication-assisted treatment in prison, not only as a crime-control strategy but also because of ethical and legal responsibilities to provide appropriate healthcare. The CJS also has opportunities to alter supply that were not relevant in the past, including deterring pill-mill doctors and disrupting web sites used to distribute FOSO. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 4 is January 13, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Charge Bargaining and Sentence Discount: The Victim's Perspective

1997 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fenwick
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Charge Bargaining ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Due Process Rights

This paper draws attention to the interests of the victim in the criminal justice system in relation to the use of charge bargaining and the sentence discount in UK law. The paper argues that debate in this area tends to assume that these practices, particularly use of the graded sentence discount, are in harmony with the needs of crime control and with the interests of victims, but that they may infringe due process rights. Debate tends to concentrate on the due process implications of such practices, while the ready association of victims' interests with those of crime control tends to preclude consideration of a distinctive victim's perspective. This paper therefore seeks to identify the impact of charge bargaining and the sentence discount on victims in order to identify a particular victim's perspective. It goes on to evaluate measures which would afford it expression including the introduction of victim consultation and participation in charge bargains and discount decisions as proposed under the 1996 Victim's Charter. It will be argued, however, that while this possibility has value, victims' interests might be more clearly served by limiting or abandoning the use of these practices.

scholarly journals Role of the Court in Protecting Human Rights in crime-control Model, Accrording to the Criminal Procedure Code of 2015

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Lan Chi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Study Guides

The court exercises the judicial power, thereby plays an important role in protecting human rights. However, such role varies across nations and models of criminal procedure. Vietnam, the country has been following the model of crime control, has its corresponding approach to the role of the court in protecting human rights. Notwithstanding, the current context of improving the rule of law and human rights has posed challenges and raised questions of changing the approach. Keywords The Court, adjudication, human rights, model, due-process, crime-control, the accused References [1] Herbert L. Packer, Two models of the criminal process, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1964, 1 (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol113/iss1/1) [2] Joycelyn M. Pollock, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Cengage Learning, Boston, 2015, p.116 [3] https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/the-criminal-justice-system/which-model-crime-control-or-due-process [4] Fairchild, E. and Dammer, H. R., Comparative Criminal Justice System, 2nd ed. Belmont, Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001, p. 146 [5] Fairchild, E. and Dammer, H. R., Comparative Criminal Justice System, 2nd ed. Belmont, Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001, p. 148 [6] Đào Trí Úc, Hệ thống những nguyên tắc cơ bản của tố tụng hình sự Việt Nam theo Bộ luật tố tụng hình sự năm 2015 (in trong sách chuyên khảo “Những nội dung mới trong Bộ luật tố tụng hình sự năm 2015”, Nguyễn Hoà Bình (chủ biên), Nxb. Chính trị quốc gia – Sự thật, Hà Nội, 2016, trang 59.

Evaluating Alternatives in Criminal Justice

1976 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Musheno ◽  
Dennis Palumbo ◽  
James Levine
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Vested Interests ◽  
The Impact

A normative policy-impact model that provides criteria for evaluating specific programs as well as for determining which goals should be given priority in criminal justice is presented. With "decision structure," "self-interest goals," and "public-interest goals" the main elements of the model, the article stresses the impact of criminal justice on various groups related to this policy area. Although a policy may be aimed primarily at groups out side government (e.g., criminals), it also will have an impact on those asked to carry it out (e.g., police). When the effects benefit the nongovernment groups (sometimes called the clientele), the policy achieves "public-interest goals. " When the beneficiaries are government officials, "self-interest goals" are being attained. One of the main themes of this paper is that the extent to which public-interest goals can be reached depends entirely on how well they serve the self-interests of those who are responsible for executing the policies in question. Thus, while the article proposes that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system should be the "equalization of the burden of crime," it emphasizes that the means of accomplishing this goal are uncertain because traditional crime-control strategies (e.g., deterrence) have major fallacies. Moreover, even if promising strategies are discovered, the self- interests of personnel in the criminal justice system motivate them to subvert such policies. Only through conscious mani pulation of work incentives can the vested interests of many criminal justice personnel in the status quo be altered and the equalization of the costs of crime be obtained.

Metaphors judges live by: ‘dirty minds’ and the ‘fear of contamination’ in the new criminal justice system in Mexico

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Adriana Alfaro Altamirano
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
National Context ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
George Lakoff ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
New System

Abstract In this paper, I take George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's thesis that metaphors shape our reality to approach the judicial imagery of the new criminal justice system in Mexico (in effect since 2016). Based on twenty-nine in-depth interviews with judges and other members of the judiciary, I study what I call the ‘dirty minds’ metaphor, showing its presence in everyday judicial practice and analysing both its cognitive basis as well as its effects in how criminal judges understand their job. I argue that the such a metaphor, together with the ‘fear of contamination’ it raises as a result, is misleading and goes to the detriment of the judicial virtues that should populate the new system. The conclusions I offer are relevant beyond the national context, inter alia, because they concern a far-reaching paradigm of judgment.

scholarly journals Arti Penting Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 130/PUU-XIII/2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 170
Author(s):  
Hwian Christianto
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Control Model ◽  
Constitutional Court

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 130/PUU-XIII/2015 tidak hanya sekedar memberikan perubahan kepada rumusan Pasal 109 ayat (1) KUHAP akan tetapi penekanan konsep hukum acara pidana yang berlaku. Keberadaan Putusan membawa problematika tersendiri dalam hukum acara pidana Indonesia yang berlaku selama ini sehingga kajian terhadap Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan (SPDP) penting dilakukan berdasarkan asas hukum acara pidana dan jaminan hak asasi manusia. Metode penelitian yuridis normatif menganalisis pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi menurut asas hukum acara pidana, ketentuan hukum yang berlaku dan instumen hukum internsional dan nasional terkait hak asasi manusia. Hasil analisis yang diperoleh antara lain pertama, keharusan pemberitahuan SPDP kepada tersangka, korban, dan penuntut umum menunjukkan adanya pergeseran konsep Crime Control Model ke konsep Due Process Model sekaligus sebuah terobosan hukum yang didasarkan pada tujuh asas hukum acara pidana yang berlaku. Mahkamah Konstitusi menunjukkan konsistensi sistem acara pidana yang mengedepankan prinsip diferensiasi fungsional antara penyidik dan penuntut umum sebagai integrated criminal justice system; kedua Pemahaman akan arti penting penyampaian SPDP juga memenuhi hak asasi manusia yang dimiliki oleh tersangka, korban dan Negara.The Decision of Constitutional Court Number 130/PUU-XIII/2015 did not only change the formula of Article 109 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, but also the focus of the legal concept of the law in order. The existence of the decision has brought problems in the Criminal Code in effect, so the analysis of the Notification Letter of the Commencement of Investigation is important based on the legal base of the Criminal Code and the guarantee of human rights. A normative juridical method was used in analyzing the consideration of the Constitutional Court according to the Criminal Code, the provisions which were in effect and international and national legal instruments related to the human rights. The result of the analysis showed that, first, SPDP must be issued to the suspect, victim, and the prosecutor to show the movement of the concept of crime control model to the concept of due process model as well as a legal breakthrough based on the seven bases of the Criminal Code in effect. The Constitutional Court showed the consistency in the system of crime which put forward the principal of functional differentiation between the investigator and the prosecutor as the integrated criminal justice system; secondly, the understanding of the important meaning of issuing SPDP also fulfilled human rights of the suspect, the victim, and the country.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document