scholarly journals The Power of Racialized Discretion in Policing Migration

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Alpa Parmar
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Discretionary practices have often been put forward to explain the racially disproportionate patterns we see in policing. The focus on discretion rather than racism neatly shifts attention away from race and instead towards discretionary practices, which are notoriously amorphous and inscrutable. The attention towards discretion (rather than race) further allows race to operate without being explicitly named and, therefore, to operate as an absent present. In this article, I discuss how race and discretion work together when ordinary police officers are tasked with migration control duties to identify foreign national offenders. Drawing on empirical research conducted in England, I propose the concept of racialised discretion and argue that it holds merit because it recognises that certain discretionary practices and decisions are animated because of race, through race and with the effect (intentional or not) of racially disproportionate outcomes. The article argues for the need for racialised discretion to be seen as distinct from other forms of discretion both in policing and the criminal justice process more widely.

The Agreement of Uncontroversial Evidence and the Presumption of Innocence: An Insoluble Dilemma?

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Relationship

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Tindak Pidana Pencurian Ditinjau Dari Kajian Victimlogi (Studi Putusan No : 20/Pid.B/2017/PN. Mdn)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50
Author(s):  
Jhovindo Sitorus ◽  
Rizkan Zulyadi ◽  
Wessy Trisna
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Article 5

Protection against victims of theft is a protection according to Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, all efforts are to fulfill rights and provide assistance to provide security to victims that must be carried out by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) or other institutions according to criteria. This protection is given at all stages of the criminal justice process within the judicial environment. The following are the rights of victims and witnesses in Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims Article 5. The research method in this paper is a normative method that collects library data. The results and discussion of this study is about the protection of victims of theft based on the decision number: 20 / Pid.B / 2017 / PN. Mdn, based on the principle or theory of justice is not fair because there is no restitution or compensation to the victim, and the judge's consideration is to pay attention to things that are lightening and burdensome and pay attention to the absence of justification and forgiveness reasons for imposing a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment for 2 years against the perpetrators.

scholarly journals Risk Refraction: Thoughts on the Victim-Survivor’s Risk Journey through the Criminal Justice Process

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-190
Author(s):  
Charlotte Barlow ◽  
Sandra Walklate ◽  
Kelly Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Complexity Theory ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Complex Interplay ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

The limits of inter-agency understandings of risk in the context of intimate partner violence are well documented. Informed by Hester’s (2011) ‘three planet’ analogy and using empirical data in one police force area in the south of England, this paper offers an exploration of intra-agency operations, focusing on police risk assessment practices. Exploring the policing risk lens and the victim-survivor journey together, findings highlight police operate with at least three risk assessment moments (call hander, front-line and Safeguarding Hub) and point to the tensions that result when failing to centralise victim-survivors’ own assessment of their risk. Using complexity theory, this paper examines the complex interplay of risk that occurs when the victim-survivor risk journey intersects with the policing aspect of the criminal justice process.

Automated Risk Assessment in the Criminal Justice Process

Prejudice ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 135-154
Author(s):  
Endre Begby
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Institutionalized Racism ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
History Of ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Algorithmic Bias

This chapter addresses recent concerns about “algorithmic bias,” specifically in the context of the criminal justice process. Starting from a recent controversy about the use of “automated risk assessment tools” in criminal sentencing and parole hearings, where evidence suggests that such tools effectively discriminate against minority defendants, this chapter argues that the problem here has nothing in particular to do with algorithm-assisted reasoning, nor is it in any clear sense a case of epistemic bias. Rather, given the data set that we are given to work with, there is reason to think that no improvement to our epistemic routines would deliver significantly better results. Instead, the bias is effectively encoded into the data set itself, via a long history of institutionalized racism. This suggests a different diagnosis of the problem: in deeply divided societies, there may just be no way to simultaneously satisfy our moral ideals and our epistemic ideals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document