A guide to material on crime and criminal justice /

Includes index.

The use of 'queer' in criminal justice discourses

Within criminological literature, there are growing references to a 'queer/ed criminology'. To date, ‘queer criminology’ remains a loose collection of studies and criminal-justice related commentary that uses the term 'queer'. Amid the growing calls for the more substantial development of these criminological studies, it is timely to reflect on the ways that the term ‘queer’ has been used in these discourses, to what ends, and with what effects. This paper considers the manner in which the term 'queer' has been used in these criminological and criminal justice discourses. It suggests that ‘queer’ has been used in two dominant ways: as an 'umbrella' term for lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex, and queer-identified people; and to signify the use of theoretical tools with which to represent sexuality- and gender-diverse people more effectively within criminological research. The paper will argue that these ways of using ‘queer’ have a variety of implications and effects. Specifically, using ‘queer’ as an umbrella term has the potential to reinforce identity categories and the politics that surround identities (a critique that has often appeared in queer contexts), while using it as a theoretical tool potentially reproduces various investments in criminology and criminal justice institutions. Both uses may preclude other productive avenues for critique opened up by the term ‘queer’. The paper will conclude by suggesting that using ‘queer’ as a verb to signify a more deconstructive project directed towards criminology is a possible direction for these discussions. While this approach has its own effects, and articulates with existing deconstructive approaches in criminology, it is important to explore these possibilities at this point in the development of a ‘queer/ed criminology’ for two reasons: it highlights that multiple, and often competing, ‘queer/ed criminologies’ exist; and it expands the diverse possibilities heralded by the notion of ‘queer’.

Royal Commissions and Criminal Justice : Behind the Ideal

Royal commissions are approached not as exercises in legitimation and closure but as sites of struggle that are heavily traversed by power holders yet are open to the voices of alternative and unofficial social groups, social movements, and individuals. Three case studies are discussed that highlight the hegemony of the legal methodology and discourse that dominate many inquiries. The first case, involving a single-case miscarriage inquiry, involves a man who was accused, convicted, and served a prison sentence for the murder of his wife. Nineteen years following the murder another man confessed to the crime. The official inquiry found that nothing had gone wrong in the criminal justice process; it had operated as it should. Thus, in the face of evidence that the criminal justice process may be flawed, the discursive strategy became one of silence; no explanation was offered except for the declaration that nothing had gone wrong. The fallibility of the criminal justice system was thus hidden from public view. The second case study examines the Wood Royal Commission into corruption charges within the NSW Police Service. The royal commission revealed a bevy of police misconduct offenses including process corruption, improper associations, theft, and substance abuse, among others. The author discusses the ways in which the other criminal justice players, the judiciary and prosecuting attorneys, emerge only briefly as potential ethical agents in relation to police misconduct and corruption and then abruptly disappear again. Yet, these other players are absolved of any responsibility for police misconduct. The third case study involves a spin-off inquiry into the facts surrounding the Leigh Leigh rape and murder case. This case illustrates how official inquires can seek to exclude non-traditional viewpoints and methodologies; in this case, the views of a feminist criminologist. The third case also illustrates how the adversarial process within the legal system allows those with power to subjugate the viewpoints of others through the legitimate use of cross-examination. These three case studies reveal how official inquiries tend to speak from an “idealized conception of justice” and downplay any viewpoint that questions this idealized version of the truth.

Young People’s Offending Careers and Criminal Justice Contact: A Case for Social Justice

This article draws on an analysis of young people’s offending careers. The research was initiated against a backdrop of changing discourse around youth justice in Ireland with a shift towards prevention of offending and diversion from the criminal justice system. Locating crime and criminal justice contact within a biographical context indicated that participants’ offending, and lives generally, was bound up in marginalized transitions to adulthood, and embedded within social and economic environments characterized by high deprivation. The findings support a further shift in focus towards addressing social injustice as a necessary prerequisite to tackle the origins of youth offending.

Capacity to Attend to the Needs of Persons with Dual Diagnoses in the Criminal Justice System: Views of Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals

Currently, individuals with intellectual disabilities are overrepresented within the Criminal Justice System (Griffiths, Taillon-Wasmond & Smith, 2002). A primary problem within the Criminal Justice System is the lack of distinction between mental illness and intellectual disabilities within the Criminal Code. Due to this lack of distinction and the overall lack of identification procedures in the Criminal Justice System, individuals with disabilities will often not receive proper accommodations to enable them to play an equitable role in the justice system. There is increasing evidence that persons with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to have their rights violated, not use court supports and accommodations as much as they should, and be subject to miscarriages of justice (Marinos, 2010). In this study, interviews were conducted with mental health (n=8) and criminal justice professionals (n=8) about how individuals with dual diagnosis are received in the Criminal Justice System. It was found that criminal justice professionals lack significant knowledge about dual diagnosis, including effective identification and therefore appropriate supports and accommodations. Justice professionals in particular were relatively ill-prepared in dealing effectively with this population. One finding to highlight is that there is misunderstanding between mental health professionals and justice professionals about who ought to take responsibility and accountability for this population.