Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 1,361 items for :

  • Crime and Society x
Clear All

Bystander intervention is a method of sexual violence prevention aimed at reducing the serious and pervasive issue of sexual assault on college campuses. The current study utilises the reasoned action approach (RAA) to examine potential differences in bystander intervention engagement between college students with exposure or experience related to sexual assault to students with no such history. Students (n=290) from two mid-sized universities completed a survey examining the RAA constructs (instrumental and experiential attitudes, injunctive and descriptive norms, capacity and autonomy), their sexual assault knowledge, and anticipated regret in reference to bystander intervention. Results showed that participants with exposure or experience related to sexual assault had significantly higher behavioural intentions (p=.018; d=.31), instrumental attitudes (p<.001; d=.55), injunctive norms (p=.026; d=.29), capacity (p=.002; d=.40), autonomy (p=.022; d=.28), anticipated regret (p<.001; d=.56), and sexual assault knowledge (p=.018; d=.31). The RAA constructs also explained a significant amount of the variance of intentions for both groups (with exposure/experience adjust R2 =.501; without exposure/experience adjust R2 =.660). The RAA constructs and anticipated regret appear to be important predictors to consider when planning bystander intervention programmes aimed at reducing sexual assault on college campuses.

Restricted access
Author:

Surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019) represents an unprecedented shift in modes and asymmetries of power. Operating within and through the digital sphere, this new era of capitalism has drastic implications for our understandings of modern surveillance, corporate power, and social control. The digital, in its diffuse simultaneously online and offline form, represents the spatialisation of control within which the user and the data they produce are commodified and their identities consolidated and dissected into knowable, marketable demographics which, once reassembled, no longer represent the human being once behind them (Hammond, 2016; Brusseau, 2020). The digital represents a new frontier of harm production, as user-generated data is exploited to serve corporate interests and the normalisation of digital surveillance has given way to user apathy and technological reliance, undermining user autonomy and opportunities for resistance, while commodifying not only our identities but the entirety of the human experience. Within this context an opportunity emerges to develop a zemiology informed by the digital context that can confront the deepening harms of technologisation and consider the future of resistance. By interrogating the intersection between developments in digital technology and harm production, this article aims to acknowledge the proliferation of normalised corporate surveillance through a development in capitalism (Zuboff, 2015; 2019), and to outline opportunities for theoretical development presented by the digital context, drawing upon works within zemiology (Pemberton, 2016), surveillance studies (Murakami Wood, 2007; Murakami Wood and Ball, 2013), postphenomenology (Ihde, 1990; Verbeek, 2011; Wood, 2021; 2022), and disconnection studies (Kuntsman and Miyake, 2022), to present an invitation to both a unique theoretical orientation and an emerging field of study: digital zemiology.

Restricted access
Author:

This article fills important gaps in criminology by analysing the police response to foxhunting in one English county. Despite the Hunting Act 2004 legislating against hunting with dogs, the article demonstrates how foxhunting proceeds with a ‘business as usual’ discourse. Using Vegh Weis’ (2017) under- and over-criminalisation and historical development of the criminal justice sector (CJS), the article uses foxhunting as an example of the siting of classism in ‘original criminal selectivity’ that continues to explain police practices today. The use of foxhunting is particularly pertinent given the overlap in privileged relationships not only positioned to mechanisms of criminalisation but also to the historical development of foxhunting. The article demonstrates how the under-criminalisation of foxhunting is enabling the perpetuation of violence and harms by hunts and their supporters, the latter drawing more frequently on organised violence. This violence is aimed primarily at hunt saboteurs, whose role is also examined in this article through community activism applied to an abolitionist perspective. The article concludes that the police are there to maintain hegemonic practices positioned to economic power, a relationship that is understood by the intersection of original criminal selectivity, the law and classism.

Restricted access

Some of the most marginalised and exposed populations during the COVID-19 pandemic have been those incarcerated in penal institutions. In the present article we compare how Norway and Denmark handled the pandemic in their prison systems and analyse these efforts through the lens of how the authorities tried to invoke specific national cultures of social solidarity during the crisis. In both countries we find that increased isolation, inactivity, lack of information, and loss of trust and contact with the outside world aggravated the prison experience. However, in Norway a bigger effort was made, compared to Denmark, to lower the prison population, as well as to create possibilities for maintaining contact with friends and families through video-visits. We then analyse the pandemic prison policies in the context of how both governments through very specific national terminologies appealed to an alleged community spirit. We examine the role and situation of prisoners in connection with these national and cultural projects of social solidarity, and find that in several cases prisoners reacted to the restrictive pandemic regimes by displaying a censorious attitude towards prison staff and authorities much in the manner originally described by Thomas Mathiesen (1965). Prisoners, in other words, held the authorities accountable to their call for community spirit and the values of social solidarity they claimed to represent. This also raises a question concerning the degree to which Danish and Norwegian policies and practices live up to the notion of Nordic penal exceptionalism, or whether the crisis unveiled different penal values.

Restricted access
Author:

Chapter 4 examines youth justice policy development from 2010 (post-Labour government) under the Coalition and then Conservative governments during a period shaped by significant socio-economic austerity and socio-political insecurities that rendered the expansionist ‘new youth justice’ approach to prevention increasingly infeasible – financially, politically, practically and evidentially. It argues that socio-economic austerity and socio-political insecurity have exerted a reconstructive influence on youth justice policy making since 2010 by motivating a more pragmatic retraction and retrenchment of policy and practice, supported by the reimagining of alternative, evidence-based, principled youth justice approaches. The chapter charts the evolution of youth justice policy since 2010, from a consolidated, rebranded ‘new youth justice’ into a more explicit strategic focus on integrating progressive ‘Child First’ principles to meet prevention goals. It concludes by asserting that the ‘3Es’ of expansionist youth justice policy, be they ‘effectiveness, efficiency and economy’ (Home Office, 1998) or ‘expedience, evidence and experience’ (Smith, 2014), have been tentatively replaced by the ‘3Ps’ of austerity youth justice: politics (change), pragmatism (necessity, rationality) and principle (Child First).

Restricted access
Author:

Chapter 7 extrapolates previous findings by scrutinising the constructive influence of relationships in shaping dynamic policy-making identities in different contexts. It begins with a discussion of the power dynamics shaped by organisational and individual identity and agenda as influencing the nature of relational policy making, thereafter focusing on the relational contexts occupied by the Youth Justice Board in their policy-making relationships with governmental actors (UK and Welsh Governments, ministers, civil servants) and non-governmental actors (His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation, Welsh professionals, practitioners). What follows is a detailed exploration of the relational (relationship-based) contexts and mechanisms that are seen to shape collaborative policy making, particularly through power dynamics within and between governmental and non-governmental policy-making organisations in the Youth Justice System seeking common ground within collaborative policy-making relationships, utilising communication to build collaborative relationships and relational reciprocity promoting equitable, supportive policy-making relationships.

Restricted access
Author:

The opening chapter explores the extent and nature to which youth justice policy can be understood as ‘made’ through complex processes of social construction within and between different policy-making contexts. It asks what makes youth justice, outlining the complex, constructed and contextualised nature of youth justice policy making across its socio-historical trajectories. This leads into discussion of the nature of policy principles, which implicates a degree of coherence and order across ostensibly random and chaotic youth justice policy trajectories. There follows a critical discussion of what is understood by youth justice ‘policy’. The analysis then turns to who are the ‘makers’ of youth justice policy – the key stakeholder groups or ‘policy actors’ operating in governmental and non-governmental contexts in England and Wales. This is followed by an exploration of how youth justice policy is made, evaluating the ‘Policy Cycle Model’ through a lens of necessary complexity, focusing on the competing discourses and rationales that have shaped socio-historical trajectories of youth justice policy making. The chapter concludes by exploring power as an influence on policy-making relationships within and between youth justice contexts and stakeholder groups, with a particular focus on the exercising of power to govern, the power of experts and the generation of evidence.

Restricted access
Author:

The final chapter, coalesces the project findings into a central argument for improved understandings of policy making that move beyond reductionist, linear frameworks by examining youth justice ‘policy’ and its ‘makers’ and ‘making’ through a lens of necessary complexity. This leads into a discussion of youth justice policy making as a series of dynamic constructive influences/mechanisms, trajectories, processes, relationships and interactions that are constantly re/constructed by a range of governmental and non-governmental policy actors in relational contexts. It is concluded that while these contacts present as ostensibly chaotic, random and unpredictable, suggesting it is impossible to discern a degree of ‘coherence from chaos’, consistency and predictability or ‘patterns in the noise’ can explain and enhance the effectiveness of policy making in terms of sustainability, coherence, validity, and the faithfulness of its transfer into practice. The chapter then outlines and explores a tentative selection of lessons learned and recommendations for enhanced policy making, which cohere around: rejecting reductionism - embracing complexity, rejecting fear - embracing challenges and rejecting power - embracing expertise, experience and evidence in the youth justice sector.

Restricted access