Procedural Justice in International Criminal Courts: Assessing Civil Parties’ Perceptions of Justice at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Procedural justice advocates argue that fair procedures in decision making processes can increase participant satisfaction with legal institutions. Little critical work has been done however to explore the power of such claims in the context of mass violence and international criminal justice. This article critically examines some of the key claims of procedural justice by exploring the perceptions of justice held by victims participating as Civil Parties in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The ECCC has created one of the most inclusive and extensive victim participation regimes within international criminal law. It therefore provides a unique case study to examine some of claims of ‘victim-centred’ transitional justice through a procedural justice lens. It finds that while procedural justice influenced civil parties’ overall perceptions of the Court, outcomes remained of primary importance. It concludes by analysing the possible reasons for this prioritisation.

Desistance from Sexual Offending: A Policy and Research Agenda Whose Time Has Come

For the past three decades or so, criminal justice policies have been enacted under the assumption that individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense are life course persistent sex offenders. In that context, research has been heavily focused on the assessment of risk and the prediction of sexual recidivism.Simultaneously, little to no attention has been given to the majority of individuals convicted of sex offenses who are not arrested or convicted again.Researchers have witnessed a growing gap between scientific knowledge and the sociolegal response to sexual violence and abuse. The current legal landscapecarries important social implications and significant life course impact for a growing number of individuals. More recently, theoretical and research breakthroughs in the study of desistance from crime and delinquency have been made that can help shed some light on desistance from sex offending. Desistance research, in the context of sex offending, however, represents serious theoretical, ethical, legal, and methodological challenges. To that end, this article introduces a special issue exploring current themes in desistance research by examining the life course of individuals convicted of a sexual offense while contextualizing their experiences of desistance.

Anarchism and abolitionism in restorative justice: from promises to subjugated discourses.

Over the past 40 years, restorative justice (RJ) has slowly emerged as one of the most promising novelties within western contemporary penality, a relentlessly growing field of research able to inspire concrete actions within, outside or against many and diverse criminal justice systems. The Directive 2012/29/EU (i.e. Victims’ Directive) is just the last and most evident effort in this direction, with its emphasis on RJ as a victim service...

Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency Among Crossover Youth

Objectif. Les jeunes crossover sont définis comme des adolescents qui sont à la fois victimes de maltraitance et délinquants juvéniles. L'objectif de ce mémoire est d’examiner les relations entre les paramètres de la maltraitance (ex., récurrence, sous-types et variété) et les paramètres de la délinquance juvénile (ex., précocité, volume, variété, gravité moyenne et présence de sous-types) vécus par les jeunes crossover. Méthodes. La source des données est constituée de rapports officiels pour tous les adolescents et adolescentes québécois qui ont plaidé coupables ou ont été reconnus coupables d'un crime entre le 1e janvier 2005 et le 31 décembre 2010. D'abord, un portrait des jeunes crossover québécois est dressé à l’aide de statistiques descriptives. Ensuite, des analyses multivariées sont utilisées pour déterminer si les paramètres de la maltraitance prédisent les différentes dimensions de la délinquance et pour examiner les différences selon le sexe. Résultats. La délinquance des jeunes crossover est plus importante que celle des délinquants non-maltraités. Les expériences différentielles de la maltraitance sont liées à des paramètres hétérogènes de la délinquance juvénile. La récurrence de la maltraitance est un prédicteur important des paramètres de la délinquance ultérieure. De plus, la maltraitance est particulièrement influente sur la délinquance des garçons. Implications. Les interventions au sein des systèmes de la protection de la jeunesse et de la justice juvénile doivent être adaptées afin d'identifier les jeunes à risque de délinquance grave, de cibler les dimensions spécifiques de la maltraitance et d’entraver leurs liens à la délinquance ultérieure. L'intervention doit être privilégiée pour les victimes de multiples incidents de maltraitance et pour les garçons victimes de maltraitance.

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.

Some features of the law and order model in Spain

This research is based on the hypothesis that law and order model is displacing the procedura justice system in Spain. After a thorough review of the international literature, one can observe that the traditional structure of the penal system does not seem to be capable of containing the new forms of crime. The new penal model assumes that public opinion is alarmed and unwilling to understand rational approaches to crime, so it will be likely to accept measures aimed at calming the fear of crime, through extensive control policies and penal tools to manage uncivil behavior. Objectives and methodology A measuring instrument has been developed to confirm this hypothesis, consisting of ten features that characterize the law and order model. This instrument has been used to identify examples of its ten features in the rules and practices developed at each phase of the Spanish criminal justice system. The analysis has focused specifically on public discourse about delinquency, criminal policy decisions, legislative processes, police routines, judicial dynamics, and prison system practices. Main results The investigation has shown that there are many processes and practices indicating that the law and order model is consolidating itself in the Spanish penal system. Nevertheless this process has a different intensity at each phase, being stronger at the legislative stage and softer in the penitentiary enforcement phase. One of the main conclusions is, therefore, that the designed instrument is ideal for measuring the degree of penetration of the model throughout the system. Some of the most striking results of the reasearch will be presented at the conference. Finally, proposals arise that could prevent the new model is fully seated in our criminal justice system, finding that the trend toward more severe penalties shown already unsustainable.

Introduction

The title of this book, Hard Lesson: Reflections on Crime control in Late Modernity, contains a number of clues about its general theoretical direction. It is a book concerned, fist and foremost, with the vagaries of crime control in western neo-liberal and English speaking countries. More specifically, Hard Lessons draws attention to a number of examples in which discrete populations – those who have in one way or another offended against the criminal law - have become the subjects of various forms of stare intervention, regulation and control. We are concerned most of all with the ways in which recent criminal justice policies and practices have resulted in what are variously described as unintended consequences, unforeseen outcomes, unanticipated results, counter-productive effects or negative side effects. At their simplest, such terms refer to the apparent gulf between intention and outcome; they often form the basis for considerable amount of policy reappraisal, soul searching and even nihilistic despair among the mamandirns of crime control. Unintended consequences can, of course, be both positive and negative. Occasionally, crime control measures may result in beneficial outcomes, such as the use of DNA to acquit wrongly convicted prisoners. Generally, however, unforeseen effects tend to be negative and even entirely counterproductive, and/or directly opposite to what were originally intended. All this, of course, presupposes some sort of rational, well meaning and transparent policy making process so beloved by liberal social policy theorists. Yet, as Judith Bessant points out in her chapter, this view of policy formulation tends to obscure the often covert, regulatory and downright malevolent intentions contained in many government policies and practices. Indeed, history is replete with examples of governments seeking to mask their real aims from a prying public eye. Denials and various sorts of ‘techniques of neutralisation’ serve to cloak the real or ‘underlying’ aims of the powerful (Cohen 2000). The latest crop of ‘spin doctors’ and ‘official spokespersons’ has ensured that the process of governmental obfuscation, distortion and concealment remains deeply embedded in neo-liberal forms of governance. There is little new or surprising in this; nor should we be shocked when things ‘go wrong’ in the domain of crime control since many unintended consequences are, more often than not, quite predictable. Prison riots, high rates of recidivism and breaches of supervision orders, expansion rather than contraction of control systems, laws that create the opposite of what was intended – all these are normative features of western crime control. Indeed, without the deep fault lines running between policy and outcome it would be hard to imagine what many policy makers, administrators and practitioners would do: their day to day work practices and (and incomes) are directly dependent upon emergent ‘service delivery’ problems. Despite recurrent howls of official anguish and occasional despondency it is apparent that those involved in the propping up the apparatus of crime control have a vested interest in ensuring that polices and practices remain in an enduring state of review and reform.

Same-sex intimate partner violence : exploring the parameters

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is not only a problem for heterosexual couples. Although research in the area is beset by methodological and definitional problems, studies generally demonstrate that IPV also affects those who identify as non-heterosexual; that is, those sexualities that are typically categorized as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTI). IPV appears to be at least as prevalent in LGBTI relationships as it is in heterosexual couples, and follows similar patterns (e.g. Australian Research Centre on Sex, Health and Society 2006; Donovan et al. 2006; Chan 2005; Craft and Serovich 2005; Burke et al. 2002; Jeffries and Ball 2008; Kelly and Warshafsky 1987; Letellier 1994; Turrell 2000; Ristock 2003; Vickers 1996). There is, however, little in the way of specific community or social services support available to either victims or perpetrators of violence in same-sex relationships (see Vickers 1996). In addition, there are important differences in the experience of IPV between LGBTI and non-LGBTI victims, and even among LGBTI individuals; for example, among transgender populations (Chan 2005), and those who are HIV sero-positive (Craft and Serovich 2005). These different experiences of IPV include the use of HIV and the threat of “outing” a partner as tools of control, as just two examples (Jeffries and Ball 2008; Salyer 1999; WA Government 2008b). Such differences impact on how LGBTI victims respond to the violence, including whether or not and how they seek help, what services they are able to avail themselves of, and how likely they are to remain with, or return to, their violent partners (Burke et al. 2002). This chapter explores the prevalent heteronormative discourses that surround IPV, both within the academic literature, and in general social and government discourses. It seeks to understand how same-sex IPV remains largely invisible, and suggests that these dominant discourses play a major role in maintaining this invisibility. In many respects, it builds on work by a number of scholars who have begun to interrogate the criminal justice and social discourses surrounding violent crime, primarily sexual violence, and who problematize these discourses (see for example Carmody 2003; Carmody and Carrington 2000; Marcus 1992). It will begin by outlining these dominant discourses, and then problematize these by identifying some of the important differences between LGBTI IPV and IPV in heterosexual relationships. In doing so, this chapter will suggest some possible reasons for the silence regarding IPV in LGBTI relationships, and the effects that this can have on victims. Although an equally important area of research, and another point at which the limitations of dominant social discourses surrounding IPV can be brought to light, this chapter will not examine violence experienced by heterosexual men at the hands of their intimate female partners. Instead, it will restrict itself to IPV perpetrated within same-sex relationships.

'Homophobia' in the university classroom : law and justice students' conceptualizations of queer identity

Heteronormative discourses provide the most common lens through which sexuality is understood within university curricula. This means that sexuality is discussed in terms of categories of identity, with heterosexuality accorded primacy and all ‘others’ indeed ‘othered.’ This paper reports on research carried out by the authors in a core first year university justice class, in which students of law and/or justice were required to engage with, discuss, and reflect on discourses on sexuality. It uses a poststructural framework to identify how students understand non-heterosexualities and how they personally relate to queer identities, in the sense that it asks questions about gender and sexual identity, and the discourses surrounding them. It was found that strongly negative attitudes to non-heterosexualities are quite resistant to challenge, and that some students express being confronted with queerness as a deep-seated fear of being drawn into otherness against their will. The result was that, while many students were able to unpack their attitudes towards queerness and engage in critical reflection and re-evaluation of their attitudes, students with strongly negative views towards non-heterosexualities conversely refused to engage at all, typically perceiving even the engagement itself as a threat to their core heterosexual identity. However, the authors caution against relying on the idea that students are simply “homophobic” to explain this reluctance, as this term does not necessarily account for the complexity of the discourses that inform students’ reactions in this context. This “homophobia” may simply be related to a way of performing gender and sexual identity as opposed to overt discrimination and fear.

Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian Contexts

This article surveys literature bearing on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders, with a particular focus on comparing different approaches to dealing with the issue in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about the “punitive turn” in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. Our findings suggest that there are significant differences in the manner and extent to which Australia and Canada have invoked parental responsibility laws and policies as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. We conclude by speculating on some of the reasons for these differences and establishing an agenda for additional needed cross-jurisdictional research. In particular, we argue that it would be fruitful to undertake a cross-jurisdictional study that examines the development and effects of parental responsibility laws across a larger number of different Western countries as well as across individual states and provinces within these national jurisdictions.

Are there any true adult-onset offenders?

In the extant literature, adult-onset offending has usually been identified using official sources. It is possible, however, that many of the individuals identified would have had unofficial histories of prior offending. To investigate this issue, the men from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) were examined. The CSDD is a prospective longitudinal study of men from inner-city London, followed from age 8 to age 48. Onset of offending was identified using official records and then the self-reported offending of the adult-onset offender group (with a first conviction at age 21 or later) was compared to others. All the adult-onset offenders self-reported some previous offending in childhood and adolescence but most of this offending was not sufficiently frequent or serious to lead to a conviction in practice. About one-third of adult-onset offenders were considered to be self-reported delinquents who were realistically in danger of being convicted because of the frequency of their offending. For some, the adjudication by the criminal justice system was simply the first time that their ongoing pattern of offending had been detected. Their lack of detection was because the types of offences they were committing had lower detection rates.

“Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent” : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian contexts

In this article we survey relevant international literature on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders. In addition, as a starting point for needed cross-jurisdictional research, we focus on different approaches that have been taken to making parents responsible for youth crime in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about parental responsibility, the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. One unexpected finding of our literature survey is the relatively sparse attention given to the issue of parental responsibility for youth crime in legal and criminological literature compared to the attention it receives in the media and popular-public culture. In Part I we examine the different views that have been articulated in the social science literature for and against parental responsibility laws, along with arguments that have been made about why such laws have been enacted in an increasing number of Western countries in recent years. In Part II, we situate our comparative study of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches within a broader discussion of arguments about the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. In Part III, we identify and examine the scope of different parental responsibility laws that have been enacted in Australia and Canada; noting significant differences in the manner and extent to which parental responsibility laws and policies have been invoked as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. In our concluding discussion, in Part IV, we try to speculate on some of the reasons for these differences and set an agenda for needed future research on the topic.

Crime, Rurality and Community

Criminology has tended to treat crime as predominantly an urban phenomenon. A review of the available, albeit rather limited, empirical evidence regarding crime and law and order in rural New South Wales (NSW) raises some doubts about the urban-centric focus of criminology and opens up a range of other interesting questions concerning the differential social construction of crime problems in some rural localities, in particular the tendency to racialise questions of crime and law and order. Rather than simply developing an empirical and theoretical account of urban/rural differences, however, the paper suggests a conceptual framework for local and regional studies drawing on the work of Norbert Elias and Robert Putnam.

Serious tax non compliance : motivation and guardianship

This article reviews what international evidence exists on the impact of civil and criminal sanctions upon serious tax noncompliance by individuals. This construct lacks sharp definitional boundaries but includes large tax fraud and large-scale evasion that are not dealt with as fraud. Although substantial research and theory have been developed on general tax evasion and compliance, their conclusions might not apply to large-scale intentional fraudsters. No scientifically defensible studies directly compared civil and criminal sanctions for tax fraud, although one U.S. study reported that significantly enhanced criminal sanctions have more effects than enhanced audit levels. Prosecution is public, whereas administrative penalties are confidential, and this fact encourages those caught to pay heavy penalties to avoid publicity, a criminal record, and imprisonment.