Public Confidence in Criminal Justice: A History and Critique PDF
Preview Public Confidence in Criminal Justice: A History and Critique
CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Series Editors: Reece Walters and Deborah H. Drake PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE A History and Critique Elizabeth R. Turner Critical Criminological Perspectives Series Editors Reece Walters Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Deborah H. Drake Social Policy & Criminology The Open University Milton Keynes, UK The Palgrave Critical Criminological Perspectives book series aims to showcase the importance of critical criminological thinking when examining problems of crime, social harm and criminal and social justice. Critical perspectives have been instrumental in creating new research agendas and areas of criminological interest. By challenging state defined concepts of crime and rejecting positive analyses of criminality, critical criminological approaches continually push the boundaries and scope of criminology, creating new areas of focus and developing new ways of thinking about, and responding to, issues of social concern at local, national and global levels. Recent years have witnessed a flourishing of critical criminological narratives and this series seeks to capture the original and innovative ways that these discourses are engaging with contemporary issues of crime and justice. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/series/14932 Elizabeth R. Turner Public Confidence in Criminal Justice A History and Critique Elizabeth R. Turner University of Liverpool Liverpool, UK Critical Criminological Perspectives ISBN 978-3-319-67896-2 ISBN 978-3-319-67897-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67897-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955028 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Détail de la Tour Ei el © nemesis2207/Fotolia.co.uk Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland For everyone who encouraged me and made me smile whilst I worked on this project, especially Sarah, Megan and Reuben P reface July 2000. In a leaked memo,1 Prime Minister Tony Blair worries that he, and his government, are perceived as ‘somehow out of touch with gut British instincts’. On crime, he says, he is viewed as ‘soft’. His proposed response is to formulate a ‘tough public message’ by announcing an eye-catching initiative ‘e.g. locking up street muggers … this should be done soon, and I, personally, should be associated with it’. This book is for anyone who is worried about the state of democracy. It is likely to be of particular interest to students and researchers of criminol- ogy who are wondering what role their field of inquiry might play in help- ing to combat the kind of shallow, image-obsessed politics of crime and justice exemplified in the short historical episode recounted above. It is also likely to be of interest to anyone concerned about the adequacy and democratic efficacy of survey-based approaches to capturing ‘public opinion’. These issues were a central focus of mine when, for three years from 2006 to 2009, I was employed as a ‘Knowledge Transfer Partnership Associate’ (KTP Associate) on a three-year programme of research. The research aimed to provide strategic and practical insights into how crimi- nal justice organisations should approach the requirement that they increase ‘public confidence in the criminal justice system’. The final report (Turner et al. 2009) highlighted the failure of existing conceptualisations and measures of public confidence to provide a meaningful way of gaug- ing the extent to which members of the public see the criminal justice system as legitimate and are willing to engage with it. My PhD thesis, which developed alongside my work on the project, used the public con- vii viii PREFACE fidence agenda as a vehicle for exploring the significance of a term which had become fashionable at the time: ‘public criminology’. In a controversial book, entitled Public Criminology?, published whilst I was writing my PhD thesis, two of the UK’s leading criminologists argued that ‘criminology’s public role is most coherently and convincingly described as that of contributing to a better politics of crime and its regu- lation’ (Loader and Sparks 2011, 117). This formulation struck a chord with me at the time, and exploring how researchers might contribute to ‘a better politics’ has remained one of my primary preoccupations. I have written a number of journal articles and book chapters on this topic (see Turner 2008, 2013, 2014, 2016); however, I often felt, when reflecting on feedback from numerous anonymous reviewers, that producing a lon- ger piece of writing would enable me to make and illustrate my arguments more clearly. And that is what I try to do in this book. Notes 1. See: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/jul/17/labour.politi- calnews1 for full-text of memo. refereNces Loader, Ian, and Richard Sparks. 2011. Public Criminology? London: Routledge. Turner, Elizabeth R. 2013. Beyond ‘Facts’ and ‘Values’: Rethinking Some Recent Debates about Criminology’s Public Role. British Journal of Criminology 53 (1): 149–166. ———. 2016. Mass Incarceration and Public Opinion on Crime and Justice: From Democratic Theory to Method and Reality. In Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration, ed. Albert W. Dzur, Ian Loader and Richard Sparks, 213–237. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, Liz. 2008. Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: The Impact of a Dominant National-Level Discourse on Research and Practice. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 10 (3): 174–189. ———. 2014. Penal Populism, Deliberative Methods and the Production of ‘Public Opinion’ on Crime and Punishment. The Good Society 23 (1): 87–102. Turner, Liz, E. Campbell, A. Dale, and R. Graham. 2009. Creating a Knowledge- base of Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: Report 5: Final Report on the Empirical Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University. a ckNowledgemeNts This book was made possible in the first instance by my employment on a three-year project funded by the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships pro- gramme (KTP006241), and match-funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Northumbria Local Criminal Justice Board (£120,000). The Principal Investigator was Prof Elaine Campbell (Newcastle University). Dr Ruth Graham (also Newcastle University) was Co-Investigator and Dr Andy Dale (Business Manager of the Northumbria Local Criminal Justice Board) was the lead from the Non-academic Research Partner. Research leave of one semester provided by my current employer, the University of Liverpool, provided me with the necessary time and space to complete the work on this book. Aside from these necessary ‘official’ acknowledgements I am particu- larly grateful to the following people, all of whom made significant con- tributions in supporting me to develop the ideas contained in this book. Firstly, Sarah Meyers, who encourages and supports me in everything I do. Secondly, my PhD supervisors Elaine Campbell and Ruth Graham, who consistently pushed and challenged me, introduced me to ideas which have left a lasting impression on my intellectual perspective, and, above all, supported and encouraged me in developing my own ideas. And finally (but by no means least) Dr/Inspector Andy Dale whose patience and flexibility throughout the five years that we worked together were invaluable, as were his helpful hints on writing style and his generos- ity with biscuits! ix x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In addition to these known contributions are those from people who I may never have met. Over the last several years numerous anonymous reviewers have had sight of different aspects of the work presented here. I have tried, so far as I was able, to take account of their feedback and improve on my argu- ment and I am grateful for the way these reviewers challenged me to do so. It goes without saying, though, that any remaining errors and weaknesses remain all my own.
The list of books you might like
