The promise of justice reinvestment

Abstract: This article examines the notion and practice of Justice Reinvestment (‘JR’), an emerging approach addressing the high social and economic costs of soaring incarceration rates. JR invests in public safety by reallocating dollars from corrections budgets to finance education, housing, healthcare, and jobs in high-crime communities. Key distinguishing features of JR (including justice and asset mapping, budgetary devolution and localism, and the desirability of bipartisanship) are briefly outlined, followed by discussion of its recent emergence and application in the United States, and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. The prospects for the adoption of JR approaches in Australia are then considered, with particular reference to the high imprisonment rates of Indigenous people. If JR is to be promoted in the Australian context it is important that it be subject to critical scrutiny and therefore some of the key problems are briefly outlined, before a conclusion which emphasizes the potential benefits of JR.

Prison rates, social democracy, neoliberalism and justice reinvestment

This chapter will begin with a brief summary of some recent research in the field of comparative penology. This work will be examined to explore the benefits, difficulties and limits of attempting to link criminal justice issues to types of advanced democratic polities, with particular emphasis on political economies. This stream of comparative penology examines data such as imprisonment rates and levels of punitiveness in different countries, before drawing conclusions based on the patterns which seem to emerge. Foremost among these is that the high imprisoning countries tend to be the advanced western liberal democracies which have gone furthest in adopting neoliberal economic and social policies, as against the lower imprisonment rates of social democracies, which variably have attempted to temper free-market economic policies in various ways. Such work brings both social democracy and neoliberalism into focus as issues for, or subjects of, criminology. Not in the sense of new ‘brands’ of criminology but rather as an examination of the connections between the political projects of social democracy and neoliberalism, and issues of crime and criminal justice. In the new comparative penology, social democracy and neoliberalism are cast in opposition, simultaneously raising the questions of to what extent and how adequately both social democracy and neoliberalism have been constituted as subjects in criminology and whether dichotomy is the only available trope of analysis?

Spatial information infrastructure : what can it possibly mean?

Investment begins with imagining that doing something new in the present will lead to a better future. Investment can vary from incidental improvements as safe and beneficial side-effects of current activity through to a more dedicated and riskier disinvestment in current methods of operation and reinvestment in new processes and products. The role of government has an underlying continuity determined by its constitution that authorises a parliament to legislate for peace, order and good government. ‘Good government’ is usually interpreted as improving the living standards of its citizens. The requirements for social order and social cohesion suggest that improvements should be shared fairly by all citizens through all of their lives. Arguably, the need to maintain an individual’s metabolism has a social counterpart in the ‘collective metabolism’ of a sustainable and productive society.

Mapping the conditions of penal hope

This article examines the conditions of penal hope behind suggestions that the penal expansionism of the last three decades may be at a ‘turning point’. The article proceeds by outlining David Green’s (2013b) suggested catalysts of penal reform and considers how applicable they are in the Australian context. Green’s suggested catalysts are: the cycles and saturation thesis; shifts in the dominant conception of the offender; the global financial crisis (GFC) and budgetary constraints; the drop in crime; the emergence of the prisoner re‐entry movement; apparent shifts in public opinion; the influence of evangelical Christian ideas; and the Right on Crime initiative. The article then considers a number of other possible catalysts or forces: the role of trade unions; the role of courts; the emergence of recidivism as a political issue; the influence of ‘evidence based’/‘what works’ discourse; and the emergence of justice reinvestment (JR). The article concludes with some comments about the capacity of criminology and criminologists to contribute to penal reductionism, offering an optimistic assessment for the prospects of a reflexive criminology that engages in and engenders a wider politics around criminal justice issues.