jonka Gillian Dickinson 5 vuotta sitten
278
Lisää tämän kaltaisia
The question relates to Section B, Question 2 and covers a number of central concerns. These are:
Within Criminology, the histories of punishment have become prominent with respect to the developments in penal
since the mid-1970’s onward. With an emphasis on shifts and
discontinuities in punishment, underpinned and legitimated by a political and populist hostility to offenders. This has given rise to the rise of risk within penology:
Issues of cost have led to ill thought out policies and knee jerk responses.
More conservative and defensive approaches that seek to minimise and contain risk through an expansion of the apparatus of control ie. Actuarial Approaches to crime.
The identification, assessment and management of risk has become a central theme of criminal justice policy. For some penal policy commentators this represents a 'sea-change' in crime management to a new era of 'actuarial justice'.
“the management of crime opportunities and risk distribution rather than the management of individual offenders."
it is argued here that this has been replaced by more conservative and defensive approaches that seek to minimise and contain risk through an expansion of the apparatus of control.
What is seen as an appropriate response to crime and the type and level of response required often reflect such public opinions and political ideologies. Such concerns have dominated law and order discourse since the early 1970’s
There is a new emphasis upon effective enforcement and control
A relaxation of concern about the civil liberty of suspects and the rights of prisoners
Sentences that are higher than would be deemed acceptable by retributive principles.
Prison has been reinvented as a means of incapacitative restraint
Probation and parole have de-emphasized their social work functions
Criminals are decidedly not ‘normal’ but are, rather, evil or wicked, dangerous and dealt with via indeterminate sentences or exclusionary orders.
Increasing Popular Support for Security Measures:
More Restrictive Public Assistance Policies
Garland’s (2001) prediction was that the factors that influence public attitudes toward crime control also shape views about welfare regulations.
Deprivation Powers
Exclusion Powers
Civil Preventative Orders (public protection tools)
Criminals are normal and rational and can be deterred or diverted by systematic and pragmatic techniques.
In reducing the opacity of everyday life, social media are indispensable tools of surveillance and intelligence gathering. Social media produce a “crisis of visibility” (Haggerty& Sandhu, 2014),
Surveys from the International Association of Chiefs of Police revealing 96 percent of departments regularly employ them (IACP, 2016).
While the contemporary “expository society” empowers citizens as subjects of communication (Harcourt, 2015), when posting content and disclosing information, it also render their thoughts, behaviour, whereabouts, and relations knowable and amenable to institutional oversight (Marwick, 2012).
Reductivist arguments can be supported by the form of moral reasoning known as 'Utilitarianism' or 'Utilitarian Philosophy'.
Focus is placed on attempting to predict risk or pre-empt the offenders future possibility of exhibiting dangerous behaviour. But can this be done accurately?
The pursuit of new crime control techniques: Situational crime management Surveillance
Securing Rehabilitation is replaced by: Management Control
There is little evidence that Incapacitatory sentences can be targeted effectively. Ashworth (2005:206) suggests, "our powers of prediction are simply not up to the job whether we use impressionistic guesswork, psychological testing, statistical prediction techniques or any other method".
Clinical Diagnosis is replaced by: Risk Calculations Probabilities
The resulting sense of insecurity has led us to embrace habits and policies that would have seemed unthinkably repressive thirty years ago” (Owen, 2007:4).