Legal responses to domestic abuse have been a political priority of the UK Government since at least 2010, eventually leading to the passing of the seminal legislation in this area for England and Wales, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, the exclusion of protection for migrant victim-survivors with precarious immigration statuses under the Act demonstrates a failure in understanding that the experience and risk of domestic abuse differ for these individuals from that of the mainstream, due to their intersectional identities as (predominantly) migrant women. Many migrant victim-survivors still find themselves trapped in abusive situations, as the law fails to safeguard their rights to reside legally should they choose to present themselves to authorities by reporting their abuse. A distinct lack of acknowledgment as to inequalities faced by those at the intersection of migrant status and gender (Crenshaw, 1989; 1991) has led to increased insecurity for some of the most vulnerable. This article shines a light on this discrimination under the law in England and Wales. It adopts an intersectionality framework to examine such inequality, analysing Appendix Violence Domestic Abuse and the Migrant Victim Domestic Abuse Concession in UK immigration law, as well as the Support for Migrant Victims Pilot and its relevant Evaluation Report, against the international standards of the Istanbul Convention. It argues that the UK Government is failing to tackle the problem of migrant victim-survivors’ protection concerning domestic abuse, and in some situations, has made it worse.This article aims to state the law as of 1 May 2024.
Obstetric violence is a term that has sparked considerable debate. It represents a range of harmful practices around unwanted intimate examinations. This article explores the contested boundaries of obstetric violence, examining both overtly abusive actions and more routine, yet potentially harmful, medical practices during childbirth and beyond. By delving into the underlying patriarchal and misogynistic structures within healthcare, the article challenges traditional understandings of care in childbirth. It argues for a broader, more nuanced recognition of obstetric violence, emphasising its connection to gender-based violence and the need for a more context-sensitive approach in both legal and medical frameworks. The aim is to expand the discourse on obstetric violence to include often overlooked and normalised practices that contribute to the mistreatment and dehumanisation of women, birthing people, and transgender people receiving gender-affirming care.
We are two colleagues and friends of Thomas Mathiesen who have written about Thomas from two perspectives. Kristian Andenæs contributes with the inside perspective of a long-time colleague at the Institute for Sociology of Law and the Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law. Knut Papendorf, as a colleague and former criminologist and activist in Germany, focuses on the potential provided by the abolitionist model, as advocated by Thomas Mathiesen.
This article challenges the notion of police neutrality and independence by highlighting the inherent politicisation within the policing apparatus. It explores the complex relationship between the police and political authorities in managing crowds and maintaining public order. Drawing on criminological and sociological perspectives, the study adopts a critical approach to analyse the operational decisions made by the police and their interactions with political authorities. This interaction significantly influences the operational strategies employed during the management of public demonstrations. The dynamic emphasises how a segment of the police force in Italy is tasked with ‘political policing’, serving as a link between government authorities and field agents. Ultimately, this work aims to fill a gap in the literature by demonstrating the ongoing politicisation of the police mandate in Italy, particularly in the context of public order management.
Scholars have only recently begun to link transitional justice frameworks to legal settlements after terror. In the wake of Anders Breivik’s 2011 attacks, Norway has witnessed a series of terror and mass violence events, each followed by extensive legal proceedings. These include the 2019 mosque attack, the 2021 Kongsberg killings, and the 2022 Islamist attack during Oslo Pride week. This article examines these trials as a societal, ongoing process. This research contributes to the field of transitional justice by examining how legal systems grapple with the aftermath of terror in the absence of clear-cut criminal narratives. Focus is given to how we can expand our understanding of the meaning of legal accountability in terror contexts. The central contribution of the article is to problematise the relationship between terror trials as vehicles for perpetrator responsibility, and justice and healing. Starting from the mental health narratives surrounding all the perpetrators, the article suggests that there is a tension between holding terrorists accountable and defining them as patients. To contribute to alternative ways of construing legal accountability, the article puts forward examples of how accountability for terror is being navigated and negotiated in bureaucratic, political, and international legal discourse and practice. The article is part of a special issue honouring the contributions of the late Professor Thomas Mathiesen.
In his article ‘Selective incapacitation revisited’, Thomas Mathiesen (1998) addresses the dominance of a technical and scientific language associated with the risk prediction culture that originated from a criminological research community where risk is considered as objective and measurable. In this article I discuss how practitioners perceive these aspects of risk prediction. For policymakers, targeting means using thresholds to target groups of offenders, but for frontline officers, it means targeting an individual. The officer must set an individualised assessment against the aggregated assessments from risk predictions. I will analyse how this has manifested in three Norwegian risk assessment projects: the offender assessment system, risk assessment of violent extremism, and early intervention to prevent youth crime. This article contributes to the understanding of how the political aspects of risk impact practitioners, and how the concept of risk as an artifact is understood by practitioners. I will first present the context of selective incapacitation and the history of research in this field. I will then contextualise the different understandings of risk within policy and practice. The main section is an analysis of the three cases. I end by discussing how acknowledgement of the political aspects of risk can promote sensitivity around the use of risk assessment tools.
