Kelly Richards
During the last quarter-century, restorative justice has emerged as a widely-utilised response to crime in Western nations. This article, which stems from a Foucauldian genealogy of restorative justice, argues that its embeddedness within the discourse of “empowerment” renders restorative justice a politically acceptable response to crime. “Empowerment”, it is argued, is one of many conditions of emergence of restorative justice. The discourse of “empowerment” underpins restorative justice in tangible ways, and has informed legislation and policy in Western jurisdictions. This article seeks to problematise the taken-for-granted nature of this discourse. It argues that the discourse of “empowerment” produces restorative justice subjects who are increasingly governed and governable. As “empowering” restorative practices are targeted towards “disempowered” individuals and communities, concerns are raised about the potential of restorative justice to disproportionately impact upon socially marginalised populations and to increase social exclusion.
The Death Penalty: An Unusual Punishment America is Inflicting Upon Itself
Stephanie Boys
The United States is the only Western, industrialized nation still executing criminal offenders. The Constitutional provision that is most often used to call the appropriateness of capital punishment in the United States into question is the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents of capital punishment have often argued various reasons why the death penalty is a cruel punishment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has not agreed. A new approach to abolition advocacy is needed. Since the death penalty has not been determined cruel, I submit a new legal argument based on the unusual nature of capital punishment. Utilizing systems theory, I posit the death penalty is an unusual criminal punishment due to the extraordinary range of persons beyond merely the defendant who are negatively impacted by executions.
Demythelogizing Personal Loyalty to Superiors
Sam S. Souryal
This article examines the practice of personal loyalty to superiors, in general, and in criminal justice agencies, in particular. While practitioners are taught that their primarily loyalty is to the United States Constitution, State laws, departmental rules and regulations, they are organizationally taught that personal loyalty to superiors is paramount if they wanted their career to continue and prosper. As a result many practitioners are rightfully confused (even exhibiting paranoia) over who or what to be primarily loyal to, and at what price or risk. This unwarranted fear has been behind numerous acts of malfeasance and misfeasance; it can lower the workers’ morale, confuses the practitioners, and destabilizes the agency’s equilibrium. This article examines three types of workplace loyalties, and suggests, as an attempt toward reform, the use of a more sensible duty-based paradigm. Such a paradigm can be based on four practical propositions: (1) seriously examining why personal loyalty to superiors is deemed essential, if at all, especially since it is never mentioned in the agency’s rules and regulations; (2) taking the fear out of the language of “loyalty-disloyalty” by perhaps replacing the term with more benign and rather measurable terms such as “performance and collaboration;” (3) strengthening dutiful supervision; and (4) maximizing professional accountability.
Family Leave and Law Enforcement: A Survey of Parents in U.S. Police Departments
Corina Schulze
The women of United States police departments challenge traditional gender role expectations by exhibiting equal competence in a job with a masculine identity. Women also modify police culture in a myriad of ways, one of which is through the special work-related needs that accompany motherhood. Results from a survey of police officers suggest that gendered perceptions regarding work and family persist indicating that a value shift within police departments has occurred. Findings derived from qualitative responses suggest that women’s entry in policing, along with shifting societal attitudes about work and family, could transform the institution’s “hegemonic masculinity,” an enduring characteristic of many police departments.
High Policing Theory and the Question of ‘What is to be Done?’
Warwick Tie
Within the field of high policing theory it has become increasingly difficult to pose the question of ‘What is to be done?’ in ways that do not result in a pragmatic accommodation of existing political arrangements. This essay proposes a way of reanimating the normative impulse of earlier high policing theory such that this outcome is exceeded. It does so by drawing upon Fredric Jameson’s distinction between representation and representation in motion, such that the emergent state of normativity takes the form of normativity as a representation of itself in motion. This form of normativity draws upon the performative character of the power that is particular to the practices associated with high policing. The proposition is illustrated with normative responses made to instances of political policing within the New Zealand context.
Critical Criminology, May 2011: Volume 19, Issue 2
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.