Deviant knowledge : criminology, politics and policy

The “political” dynamics and the details of conducting criminological research on a day-to-day basis are examined. The role of government and commercial contracts in contemporary criminological scholarship are explored, as well as the various obstacles that criminologists must negotiate during the completion of a research project. The criminological implications of the ways in which academic environments are changing under new managerialist philosophies are examined. The ways in which notions of “critique” have become subordinate to the politics of existing governing rationalities are also examined. Chapter 1 details the questions, contours, and methods of “deviant knowledge.” Chapter 2 discusses the contours of criminological knowledge, including early criminological developments, international reconstruction and developments in criminological research following World War II, the United Nations, and the rise of critical genres. Chapter 3 explores criminology, government, and public policy, including the policies of the Home Office of England and Wales; the National Institute of Justice in Washington, DC; and the Australian Institute of Criminology in Canberra. The politics and control of criminological knowledge are discussed in chapter 4, along with ethical and legal issues, gathering and accessing data, and publishing results of research. Chapter 5 describes the “War on Terror” and government intolerance and suppression of free speech. Chapter 6 examines the new modes of governance and the commercialization of criminological knowledge. Chapter 7 discusses intellectual independence and collective concern, and the value of critique. 3 appendices, 546 references, index

Introduction to special issue on what criminology can say about the war on terror

On 20 September 2001, the former US President, George W. Bush, declared what is now widely, and arguably infamously, known as a ‘war on terror’. In response to the fatal 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, President Bush identified the US military response as having far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. It was, he argued, ‘our war on terror’ that began ‘with al Qaeda, but … it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated’ (CNN 2001). This was to be a war that would, in the words of former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seek to eliminate a threat that was ‘aimed at the whole democratic world’ (Blair 2001). Blair claimed that this threat is of such magnitude that unprecedented measures would need to be taken to uphold freedom and security. Blair would later admit that it was a war that ‘divided the country’ and was based on evidence ‘about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong’ (Blair 2004). The failures of intelligence ushered in new political rhetoric in the form of ‘trust me’ because ‘instinct is no science’ (Blair 2004). The war on terror has been one of the most significant international events in the past three decades, alongside the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the unification of Europe and the marketization of the People's Republic of China. Yet, unlike the other events, it will not be remembered for advancing democracy or sovereignty, but for the conviction politics of particular politicians who chose to dispense with international law and custom in pursuit of personal instincts that proved fatal. Since the invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and …

Criminology and genetically modified food

Genetically modified or engineered foods are produced from rapidly expanding technologies that have sparked international debates and concerns about health and safety. These concerns focus on the potential dangers to human health, the risks of genetic pollution, and the demise of alternative farming techniques as well as biopiracy and economic exploitation by large private corporations. This article discusses the findings of the world's first Royal Commission on Genetic Modification conducted in New Zealand and reveals that there are potential social, ecological and economic risks created by genetically modified foods that require closer criminological scrutiny. As contemporary criminological discourses continue to push new boundaries in areas of crimes of the economy, environmental pollution, risk management, governance and globalization, the potential concerns posed by genetically modified foods creates fertile ground for criminological scholarship and activism.

Book Review : Beyond criminology : taking harm seriously edited by Paddy Hillyard, Christina Pantazis, Steve Tombs and Dave Gordon (2004)

Hillyard et al.'s Beyond Criminology: Taking Crime Seriously is an innovative collection that attempts to take criminology beyond state definitions of crime to discourses involving harm, or what the editors refer to as ‘zemiology’, or what could be called ‘social harm theory’. The central theme of the book is that ‘it makes no sense to separate out harms, which can be defined as criminal, from all other types of harm’ (p. 2). At long last, ‘harm’ is discussed with the theoretical and practical integrity it deserves as an academic and intellectual narrative. For too long it has been ignored or omitted from the criminological lexicon. This book ensures that it captures centre stage within analyses that refocus the agenda to deleterious acts not always covered by the state legislature...

History of critical criminology in Australia

Those working in the critical criminology tradition have been centrally concerned with the social construction, variability and contingency of the criminal label. The concern is no less salient to a consideration of critical criminology itself and any history of critical criminology (in Australia or elsewhere) should aim itself to be critical in this sense. The point applies with equal force to both of the terms ‘critical’ and ‘criminology’. The want of a stable theoretical object has meant that criminology itself needs to be seen not as a distinct discipline but as a composite intellectual and governmental hybrid, a field of studies that overlaps and intersects many others (sociology, law, psychology, history, anthropology, social work, media studies and youth studies to name only a few). In consequence, much of the most powerful work on subjects of criminological inquiry is undertaken by scholars who do not necessarily define themselves as criminologists first and foremost, or at all. For reasons that should later become obvious this is even more pronounced in the Australian context. Although we may appear at times to be claiming such work for criminology, our purpose is to recognize its impact on and in critical criminology in Australia.

A symposium of reviews of public criminology? : by Ian Loader and Richard Sparks (Oxford : Key Ideas in Criminology, Routledge, 2010, 196pp.) with contributions from Nils Christie, Elliott Currie, Helena Kennedy, Gloria Laycock, Rod Morgan, Joe Sim, Jacqueline Tombs and Reece Walters

Public or Civic Criminology : A Critique of Loader and Sparks

Embedded criminology and knowledges of resistance

This chapter explores the changing intellectual landscapes and market-led research within academic institutions as the rise of 'embedded criminology' and argues for knowledges of resistance.