The new culture of crime control

Introduction

Shift in Perspective: Action to Structure

1. Focus on Structural Analysis:

   • The author transitions from analyzing problem-solving actions of politicians, administrators, and social groups to a structural perspective.

   • Aims to explore the broader crime control field that has emerged through the interplay of various decisions, practices, and actions.

2. Objective of the Analysis:

   • Reflect on the overall character of the crime control field.

   • Understand how it differs from mid-20th-century penal-welfarism.

   • Assess the impact of transformations within this field.

3. Introduction to Analytical Issues:

   • Two critical analytical issues are addressed before delving deeper:

     1. Complexity and its Representation.

     2. Relation of Past to Present.

1. The Problem of Complexity

• Multiplicity of Components:

  • The crime control field consists of:

    • A variety of agencies, practices, and discourses.

    • Diverse and often contradictory policies and practices.

• Characterizing the Field:

  • The field should be understood by examining:

    • The distribution of elements.

    • The organizing principles connecting them.

    • The fault lines where conflicts arise.

  • This approach avoids seeking a single, reductive essence for the field.

• Critique of Essentialist and Extreme Analyses:

  • Essentialist Analyses:

    • Provide powerful simplicity, but fail to capture the complex social reality.

  • Focus on Extremes:

    • Analyses that emphasize extreme policies (e.g., “three strikes” laws) neglect the modal practices that define the central tendencies of the field.

    • Even in penal-welfarism’s prime, the field was not defined by correctional facilities alone:

      • Fines and probation were more common than rehabilitative treatments.

    • Similarly, focusing only on extremes in the contemporary field risks misrepresentation.

2. Relation of Past to Present

• Interplay of Old and New:

  • Historical change is not about replacing the old with the new; instead, it reflects a modification of the old by the new.

  • Co-existence of Practices:

    • New crime control practices co-exist with older ones, creating a layered and intertwined reality.

• Balancing Focus:

  • Emphasis on new practices should not lead to the neglect of older practices and institutions.

  • Analyses should reflect the intertwined nature of:

    • Established penal-welfare arrangements.

    • Emergent crime control approaches.

• Structuring the Present:

  • The present crime control field is shaped by the interaction of:

    • Residual arrangements from the past.

    • Transformative developments in recent decades.

Key Questions for Understanding the Crime Control Field

• Nature and Characteristics:

  • What are the organizing principles of the crime control field?

  • What are the strategic rationales that guide its operation?

  • What are the recurring contradictions within its structure?

• Guiding Values and Sensibilities:

  • Which political values and cultural sensibilities underpin its practices?

  • What criminological conceptions shape the meaning of these practices?

• Relation to Broader Social Developments:

  • How does the crime control field relate to:

    • The ‘reformed’ welfare state.

    • The social organization of late modernity in America and Britain.

  • What connections exist between crime control and other social developments of the past 30 years?

Key Themes of the Introduction

1. Complexity of Crime Control Field:

   • The field’s diversity and contradictions necessitate a nuanced, non-reductive approach.

2. Historical Continuity:

   • The crime control field reflects an intertwining of old and new practices, rather than a clean break with the past.

3. Evolving Principles and Practices:

   • Emphasis on the strategic rationales, values, and contradictions that define the field.

4. Broader Societal Context:

   • Crime control must be analyzed in relation to larger social and political developments.

5. Avoidance of Simplification:

   • Essentialist or extreme portrayals miss the modal reality of crime control practices.

The crime control apparatus

1. Historical Change in Crime Control: Not a Transformation of Institutional Forms

• Stability of Institutional Structures:

  • The current era has not witnessed abolition and reconstruction of institutions, unlike past reforms (e.g., replacing gallows with penitentiaries or creating juvenile courts and probation services).

  • The state apparatus of criminal justice and the institutional architecture of penal modernity remain intact.

• Transformations in Deployment and Significance:

  • Changes have occurred in the strategic functioning, deployment, and social significance of these institutions, rather than their structural forms.

2. Changes in Penal Emphasis

• Expansion of the Criminal Justice System:

  • Since 1970, there has been massive growth in:

    • Caseloads, employment, and expenditure.

    • The biggest prison-building program since the Victorian era in both the USA and the UK.

• Increasing Use of Custody:

  • Shift toward custodial sentences:

    • Sentences of imprisonment are longer, with increased time served and a higher likelihood of parole revocation.

    • Custodial sentences are used more frequently, reversing the historical preference for fines and community supervision.

  • In the USA:

    • A notable rise in judicial executions, reaching levels not seen since the 1950s.

• Effects of Penal Shifts:

  • These trends have impacted:

    • Prison population size, racial disparities within prisons, and the political and cultural significance of punishment.

  • However, these are changes in emphasis rather than fundamental shifts in the types of sanctions or institutional forms.

3. Policing: Shifts in Strategy but Structural Stability

• Strategic and Tactical Changes:

  • From Reactive to Proactive Policing:

    • Movement away from traditional reactive strategies like 911 policing to proactive approaches, including:

      • Community policing.

      • Order-maintenance policing.

      • Problem-oriented policing.

    • Emphasis on targeting disorder, incivilities, and misdemeanors.

  • Adaptation to Local Contexts:

    • Policing has become:

      • More locally responsive and attuned to public pressures.

      • Focused on prevention and community partnerships.

• Technological and Managerial Innovations:

  • Use of information technology and new management techniques to optimize resource allocation and enhance problem-solving.

  • Emergence of post-bureaucratic organization with flexible links to community partners.

• Limited Structural Change:

  • Despite tactical shifts, the basic organizational structure of policing remains the same:

    • Public policing is still a taxpayer-funded legal entity charged with law enforcement.

  • Daily practices of most police forces show less drastic change than the new strategies suggest.

4. The Role of Victims in Criminal Justice

• Increased Emphasis on Victims:

  • Recognition of Victims’ Rights:

    • Introduction of victim impact statements and victim opinions on sentencing and parole.

  • Growth of victim support groups and routine referrals by police.

• Effects on Criminal Justice:

  • Changes in routines of criminal justice have elevated the status and significance of victims.

  • These shifts, however, have not led to:

    • Development of new apparatuses.

    • Widespread emergence of new sanctions.

• Restorative Justice Initiatives:

  • Reparation and Mediation:

    • Programs promote restorative outcomes over punitive measures by bringing victims and offenders together.

  • Limited Impact:

    • Such initiatives are still marginal, focusing on minor cases at the shallow end of the system.

    • Their prominence lies more in academic and reform enthusiasm than their frequency or systemic impact.

5. Persistence of the Correctionalist Apparatus

• Continuation of Penal-Welfarist Structures:

  • The apparatus of penal-welfarism remains intact, despite claims of living in a "post-rehabilitative" era.

  • Key components include:

    • Juvenile courts and probation services, which continue to expand.

    • Use of social and psychiatric expertise for offender assessments and diagnostic services.

• Treatment and Rehabilitation:

  • The 1990s saw significant growth in treatment programs for offenders in both community and prison settings.

  • The framework for assessing individuals, identifying risks, and offering psycho-social remedies still overlays judicial punishment.

• Changes in Sentencing Law:

  • Sentencing law has shifted:

    • Indeterminate sentences are less common, particularly in the USA.

  • Yet, the technologies and powers developed under penal-welfarism persist.

• Psycho-Social Framework:

  • The judicial system continues to:

    • Classify and assess individuals.

    • Overlay punishment with elements of diagnosis and rehabilitation.

6. Summary of Transformations

• What Has Changed?

  • Deployment of resources, strategies, and emphasis:

    • Greater use of custody and proactive policing strategies.

    • Increased visibility and participation of victims in the justice process.

  • Expansion of existing systems:

    • Growth in criminal justice caseloads, budgets, and the scale of incarceration.

• What Remains the Same?

  • Institutional forms and architectures:

    • No wholesale restructuring or abolition of institutions.

    • Core elements of penal-welfarism (e.g., juvenile courts, probation services) are still operational and expanding.

  • Public police agencies maintain their traditional structure.

• Tension Between Continuity and Change:

  • New strategies, priorities, and initiatives coexist with residual structures and practices from earlier eras.

  • The apparatus reflects an evolution rather than a radical transformation.

Concluding Reflections

• The crime control apparatus of the present era is characterized by institutional continuity but strategic and functional transformation.

• While penal-welfarist institutions persist, their deployment and emphasis have shifted significantly, reflecting broader social and cultural changes.

• A nuanced understanding requires recognizing both the continuity of historical practices and the adaptation to contemporary priorities, such as punitive measures and victim-centered justice.

The third sector: policing, penalty and prevention

Overview: Emergence of a Third Sector

• Beyond Traditional Criminal Justice:

  • Crime control now includes a third “governmental” sector alongside the traditional sectors of policing and penality.

  • This sector focuses on prevention and security, emphasizing networks and coordinated practices rather than large institutions.

• Core Characteristics:

  • Composed of crime prevention organizations, public-private partnerships, community policing arrangements, and multi-agency working groups.

  • Relies on coordination and collaboration among existing authorities, communities, and private entities.

• Intermediate Position:

  • Occupies a borderline space between:

    • The state and civil society.

    • Traditional criminal justice agencies and the broader community.

• Fragility and Scale:

  • While small in terms of budgets, staffing, and infrastructure, it significantly expands the field of formal crime control by mobilizing non-state actors and agencies.

Extension of Crime Control Beyond the State

• Shift in Boundaries:

  • The formal boundaries of crime control now extend beyond state institutions.

  • Non-state actors (e.g., citizens, corporations, communities) are increasingly responsible for crime prevention efforts.

• De-differentiation of Crime Control:

  • Marked a shift away from the centralized control of state bureaucracies:

    • Crime control is no longer monopolized by state officials.

    • Reflects a return to the shared responsibility seen in earlier periods of crime regulation (e.g., Patrick Colquhoun’s vision).

Impact on Policy and Practice

• Pressure Toward Prevention and Risk Management:

  • The third sector promotes a focus on:

    • Prevention over punishment.

    • Harm reduction and risk management over retribution and deterrence.

• Redefining Objectives:

  • Goals shift from prosecuting and punishing individuals to:

    • Minimizing criminal opportunities.

    • Enhancing situational controls to prevent criminogenic conditions.

  • Community safety becomes the ultimate aim, with law enforcement serving as a means rather than an end.

• New Priorities:

  • Emphasis on:

    • Fear reduction, harm and loss reduction, and cost control.

  • Policies reflect concerns about social stability rather than merely enforcing legal penalties.

Key Features of the Preventive Approach

• Targeting Situations, Not Individuals:

  • Focuses on reducing the convergence of factors that lead to crime, rather than punishing offenders or treating dispositions.

  • Approaches include:

    • Altering criminogenic environments to reduce criminal opportunities.

    • Applying situational controls to channel behavior away from temptations.

• Techniques and Strategies:

  • Based on ideas from:

    • Situational crime prevention, routine activity theory, and environmental criminology.

  • Practical applications:

    • Analyzing flows of people and patterns of criminal events.

    • Identifying and addressing:

      • Hot spots (areas with high crime rates).

      • Hot products (items frequently targeted by criminals).

      • Repeat victimization (frequent targeting of specific individuals or locations).

• Preferred Remedies:

  • Instead of punitive actions:

    • Establish situational controls.

    • Redirect behavior away from crime-prone settings.

  • Prosecution and punishment remain part of the approach but are secondary to preventative measures.

Integration With Traditional Crime Control

• Connection to Policing and Penality:

  • The third sector is linked with traditional sectors through partnerships, particularly with police and probation agencies.

  • This integration ensures that:

    • Preventative concerns influence the entire field of crime control.

    • Resources and strategies of state agencies support the objectives of the third sector.

• Transformative Influence:

  • Preventive priorities have begun to reshape the focus of traditional criminal justice systems:

    • Policing incorporates community safety objectives.

    • Probation services increasingly emphasize risk management over punitive supervision.

Emergence of New Specialists

• Growth of a Specialized Workforce:

  • A new cadre of professionals is emerging to staff the third sector, including:

    • Crime prevention advisers.

    • Inter-agency coordinators.

    • Systems analysts and crime auditors.

    • Risk managers, design experts, and community police officers.

  • These roles remain small in number but are increasingly influential.

• Shifts in Expertise and Thinking:

  • Specialists draw on:

    • Situational crime prevention theory.

    • Routine activity models.

    • Environmental criminology.

  • Their focus lies in analyzing and mitigating criminogenic environments rather than addressing individual offenders.

Effects on Governance

• Extending Governmental Reach:

  • By mobilizing the social control capacities of civil society actors, the government:

    • Extends its governance capacity beyond state institutions.

    • Develops new methods of indirect control through partnerships and networks.

• Transforming Control Mechanisms:

  • Moves away from coercive penal powers to methods of guiding behavior:

    • Activates preventive efforts by civil society actors.

    • Leverages corporate, community, and citizen cooperation.

Key Themes of the Third Sector

1. Expansion of Crime Control:

   • The third sector broadens the scope of crime control, incorporating non-state actors and agencies.

   • Represents a shift toward distributed responsibility.

2. Focus on Prevention:

   • Prevention and harm reduction replace punitive objectives as the dominant goals.

   • Emphasis is placed on altering situational factors to preempt crime.

3. Integration with Traditional Systems:

   • Although distinct, the third sector is linked to policing and penality, ensuring a holistic approach to crime control.

4. Emergence of Specialists:

   • New roles are shaping this sector, driven by analytical frameworks and situational theories.

5. Governance and Control:

   • The state exerts control through partnerships, networks, and indirect measures, transforming traditional governance structures.

Conclusion

The emergence of the third sector marks a profound shift in the crime control field, moving away from a solely state-driven, punitive system to a collaborative, preventative model that involves civil society. By focusing on situational crime prevention, risk management, and community safety, this sector transforms how crime is addressed and broadens the range of actors responsible for maintaining social order.

The declining autonomy of criminal justice

1. Overview: Extension of Crime Control Field

• Institutional Continuity:

  • The core architecture of the criminal justice state remains intact.

  • However, the field of crime control has expanded and its connections to society and politics have shifted.

• Reduced Autonomy:

  • Criminal justice is no longer as self-directed as it was three decades ago.

  • It is increasingly influenced by external actors, including politicians, the public, and other providers in the field of prevention and security.

2. Key Reasons for Declining Autonomy

• Collaborative Demands:

  • The need to work with other providers, including civil society and private organizations, reduces the independence of criminal justice agencies.

  • Agencies are required to be more responsive to public demands and to engage with diverse “customers.”

• Shifts in Political and Public Relationships:

  • A new dynamic between politicians, penal experts, and public opinion drives decision-making:

    • Politicians play a more directive role, setting policies and expectations.

    • Penal experts have less influence on the policy agenda.

    • Public opinion becomes a key evaluative measure for determining criminal justice priorities.

3. The Rise of Populist Crime Policy

• Populism in Criminal Justice:

  • Crime policy has become populist, prioritizing public mood and political expediency over expert guidance.

  • Features of populist policymaking:

    • Rapid responses to high-profile incidents.

    • Laws and policies enacted without consulting criminal justice professionals.

    • Penological expertise is sidelined in favor of symbolic and expressive justice.

• Electoral Calculations:

  • Populist measures are often driven by short-term electoral gains.

  • Policies may be reversed or softened if they no longer align with political advantages.

4. New Mechanisms of Political Control

• Institutional Reorganization:

  • Politicians have developed tools to micro-manage penal decision-making, including:

    • Mandatory minimum sentencing.

    • Sentencing guidelines and truth-in-sentencing laws.

    • National standards for probation, community service, and prison conditions.

    • Performance indicators for criminal justice agencies.

• Impacts on Professional Discretion:

  • These mechanisms reduce the discretionary power of criminal justice professionals.

  • Sentencing, parole, and other decisions are now more directly controlled by legislative frameworks.

  • The system has become more streamlined for delivering punishments, limiting opportunities for expert judgment or individualized assessments.

• "Pain Delivery" Framework:

  • Nils Christie’s concept of a streamlined system of pain delivery:

    • Fewer barriers exist between political directives and the application of punishments.

    • Public demands for harsher sentences are quickly translated into tangible outcomes such as increased prison terms.

5. Legislative Trends and Public Concerns

• Reactive Lawmaking:

  • Legislation is increasingly characterized by:

    • High responsiveness to public fears and media-driven outrage.

    • Retaliatory measures aimed at addressing perceived failures of the system.

  • Examples of rapid-response laws include:

    • Megan's Law: Community notification about sex offenders.

    • Three Strikes Laws: Harsh penalties for repeat offenders.

    • Violent Sexual Predator Laws: Enhanced control of certain offenders.

    • Children’s Prisons: Reintroduced after the James Bulger murder.

    • Prison Conditions Clampdowns: Policies influenced by breaches of security.

• Media Amplification:

  • Media coverage often inflates public fears by focusing on rare, high-visibility cases involving:

    • Predatory individuals.

    • Innocent victims (often children).

    • Failures of the criminal justice system.

  • These stories fuel middle-class anxieties and demand immediate action.

6. The Role of Expressive Justice

• Symbolic Measures:

  • Modern crime policies often prioritize expressive justice:

    • Assuaging public outrage.

    • Reassuring communities that the government is in control.

    • Restoring credibility to the system rather than achieving penological objectives.

• Political vs. Penological Goals:

  • These measures are primarily political in nature:

    • Designed to manage public sentiment and bolster political support.

    • Often ignore or contradict expert advice from criminologists and penal professionals.

7. Consequences of Reduced Autonomy

• Erosion of Expertise:

  • The role of criminal justice professionals in shaping policy is diminished.

  • Penological expertise has less impact on lawmaking and strategic decisions.

• Short-Term Decision Making:

  • Policies are often reactive and guided by public opinion, leading to:

    • Short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions.

    • Inefficient or counterproductive outcomes in criminal justice practice.

• Centralization of Control:

  • Political institutions, particularly legislatures and government ministers, have centralized control over crime policies:

    • Standardized and rigid frameworks replace localized discretion.

• Increased Penal Harshness:

  • Public and political pressure for greater punishments results in:

    • Longer sentences.

    • Reduced focus on rehabilitation or alternative approaches.

8. Key Examples of Populist Crime Policies

• Megan’s Law: Public notification systems for sex offenders, introduced following high-profile child abuse cases.

• Three Strikes Laws: Harsh sentencing rules for repeat offenders, aiming to deter recidivism but often criticized for disproportionate punishments.

• Children’s Prisons: Reactivated in the UK post-James Bulger murder as a response to public outcry over juvenile crime.

• Prison Condition Clampdowns: Policies targeting perceived leniency in prisons or failures in offender control, often driven by media coverage.

9. Broader Implications

• Policy Evolution:

  • Crime policy has shifted from being expert-driven to being populist-driven.

  • Politicians and media now dominate the narrative, sidelining criminological evidence.

• Social Impact:

  • Public opinion and fears, amplified by media, significantly shape the criminal justice landscape.

  • Symbolic measures may assuage public concerns but fail to address root causes of crime.

• Future Directions:

  • The trend toward populism and centralized political control in criminal justice is likely to persist unless countered by renewed emphasis on expert input and evidence-based policymaking.

Conclusion

The declining autonomy of criminal justice reflects a broader trend of populist policymaking driven by public opinion, media outrage, and political expediency. While the institutional framework remains intact, its functions and priorities are increasingly shaped by external pressures, leading to a streamlined but reactive system that often prioritizes symbolic gestures over effective solutions.

The extent and nature of structural change

1. Overview of Structural Changes in Crime Control

• Incremental Rather than Total Transformation:

  • The criminal justice state has not been completely remade.

  • Changes involve a shift in emphasis rather than an overhaul of institutional structures.

  • Crime control has expanded in new directions to adapt to:

    • Rising crime.

    • Growing public insecurity associated with late modernity.

• Growth of Non-State Crime Control:

  • The field of crime control now includes private security, community initiatives, and commercial organizations.

  • While the state remains central, its relative importance in crime control has diminished.

2. Expansion of the Crime Control Field

• Paradox of State Power:

  • The state’s presence in crime control is larger than ever, with:

    • Expanding punitive sentencing.

    • Stronger policing and security infrastructure.

  • However, this expansion coexists with acknowledgments of insufficiency, leading to:

    • Increased reliance on non-state actors.

    • Efforts to govern at a distance by partnering with private and community organizations.

• Mixed Economy of Security:

  • The state no longer claims a monopoly on security and crime control.

  • Private security has grown significantly over the last 30 years, and:

    • State agencies must now accommodate and integrate these private arrangements.

3. Resilience of Criminal Justice Institutions

• Inertia and Resistance to Change:

  • Criminal justice institutions have demonstrated resilience and adaptability.

  • Changes have been slow, subtle, and often assimilative, involving:

    • Integration of new elements (e.g., victim rights, restorative justice, crime prevention).

    • Adjustments in balances and relationships, such as:

      • Punishment vs. welfare.

      • State vs. commercial provision.

      • Instrumental means vs. expressive ends.

• Evolving Relations:

  • Criminal justice now interacts differently with:

    • The political process.

    • Public opinion.

    • Crime-control activities in civil society.

4. Comparison to Changes in the Welfare State

• Analogies to Welfare State Evolution:

  • Similar to the welfare state, the criminal justice field has:

    • Not been dismantled but overlaid with a new political culture and public management style.

    • Become more restrictive and focused on:

      • Controlling claimants' conduct.

      • Incentivizing compliance and discouraging "dependency."

• The "Penal-Welfare" Framework:

  • Penal-welfarism is shaped by the same critiques as welfarist systems.

  • These critiques have turned the institutions into "problematic terrains":

    • New strategies and objectives are built on existing systems rather than replacing them.

5. Nature of the Structural Changes

• Redeployment of Existing Institutions:

  • Changes have largely been about redirecting existing practices rather than creating entirely new ones.

  • Institutions and frameworks have been redefined with:

    • New force and significance.

    • New uses and objectives.

• Altered Frameworks and Reasoning:

  • Legal rules and managerial reasoning now prioritize:

    • New calculations of risk and harm.

    • Differentiated objectives that align with broader societal goals.

• Emergence of New Knowledge:

  • New forms of reasoning and knowledge have reshaped perceptions of crime and criminals.

  • These shifts influence:

    • How problems are defined.

    • How professionals act on these issues.

• Cultural Reconfiguration:

  • New symbols, images, and representations around crime control evoke different cultural meanings:

    • Past meanings focused on individual punishment and justice.

    • Current meanings emphasize risk management, harm prevention, and collective security.

6. Key Aspects of Institutional Change

• Incorporation of New Elements:

  • Expanded focus on:

    • Victims’ rights: Recognition of victims as central stakeholders.

    • Restorative justice: Shift from punitive to reparative approaches.

    • Crime prevention: Proactive measures to reduce criminal opportunities.

• Balancing Competing Priorities:

  • Institutions must now juggle:

    • Protection of public safety with offender rights.

    • Expressive justice (symbolic punishment) with instrumental justice (practical outcomes).

• Adaptation to Political and Public Pressure:

  • Public and political demands influence criminal justice practices more than ever.

  • Crime control strategies now align with public expectations and media narratives.

7. Practical Implications

• Redefining Daily Practices:

  • Professionals in the field operate under altered assumptions and guidelines:

    • Decision-making is guided by managerial goals and risk assessments.

    • Focus is on achieving measurable outcomes, often aligned with political mandates.

• Shift in Objectives:

  • Crime control practices now emphasize:

    • Harm reduction and risk management over retribution.

    • Proactive prevention over reactive punishment.

• Integration of Private and Community Actors:

  • Collaborative models blur traditional boundaries:

    • Crime control responsibilities are shared across state, private, and community sectors.

8. Emerging Themes in Crime Control

• Governance at a Distance:

  • The state delegates control by forming alliances with non-state actors, leveraging their resources and influence.

  • Examples include partnerships with:

    • Private security firms.

    • Community watch groups.

• Cultural Shift in Crime Control:

  • The focus has moved from individual criminality to managing broader social risks.

  • This aligns with a broader neoliberal agenda emphasizing cost-efficiency and accountability.

• Persistent Paradoxes:

  • The state simultaneously:

    • Expands its punitive powers.

    • Recognizes its inadequacies in controlling crime alone.

9. Conclusion: A Redefinition Rather Than a Transformation

• The crime control field has not been radically altered but rather redefined and repurposed.

• The changes reflect broader societal and political trends:

  • Integration of market principles into governance.

  • Greater reliance on non-state actors for security provision.

• The enduring challenge lies in managing the complex balance between:

  • Public expectations.

  • Professional expertise.

  • Political agendas.

The new control of crime control

1. Overview of the Cultural Shift

• Transformation Beyond Structure:

  • While institutional structures of crime control have changed, the most significant shifts occur at the cultural level:

    • Culture provides the framework of meaning, motivation, and purpose for crime control practices.

    • New cognitive assumptions, normative commitments, and emotional sensibilities shape actions and policies.

• Unplanned and Gradual Change:

  • These cultural changes were not explicitly designed or planned but emerged over time.

  • They reconfigure:

    • How penal agents think and act.

    • The symbolic significance of crime control practices.

• Cultural Co-ordinates of Crime Control:

  • A new culture of crime control underpins and guides:

    • Actions of crime control agencies.

    • Revised legal provisions that regulate their practices.

  • This culture is organized around three central elements:

    1. Re-coded penal-welfarism.

    2. A criminology of control.

    3. An economic style of reasoning.

2. Re-Coded Penal-Welfarism

• Evolution of Penal-Welfare Practices:

  • Penal-welfarism was once centered on rehabilitating offenders and balancing punishment with social welfare.

  • The re-coded version retains some elements but shifts focus:

    • Protection of the public becomes the primary goal.

    • Rehabilitation is reframed to serve risk reduction rather than offender reformation.

• Shift from Offender to Society:

  • Attention moves from the offender’s needs to managing risks to society.

  • Crime control focuses on:

    • Preventing harm.

    • Managing dangerous individuals.

• Risk Management Framework:

  • Offenders are categorized by risk levels, shaping interventions and decisions about:

    • Sentencing.

    • Supervision.

    • Preventative measures.

3. Criminology of Control

• Control Over Rehabilitation:

  • The traditional focus on causes of crime (criminology of causes) has been displaced by a focus on controlling behaviors (criminology of control).

  • Key objectives include:

    • Reducing opportunities for crime.

    • Enhancing situational control over potential offenders.

• Techniques and Tools:

  • Reliance on data-driven methods:

    • Mapping of crime hotspots.

    • Tracking repeat offenders.

    • Monitoring patterns of victimization.

  • Use of tools like:

    • CCTV surveillance.

    • Predictive policing technologies.

    • Environmental design to deter criminal activity.

• Prevention over Punishment:

  • Emphasis on preventing criminal events rather than reacting after they occur.

  • Strategies focus on:

    • Altering environments to reduce crime.

    • Applying deterrence mechanisms.

4. Economic Style of Reasoning

• Cost-Benefit Approach:

  • Crime control is increasingly shaped by economic calculations and managerial priorities:

    • Policies and practices are evaluated based on cost-efficiency and effectiveness.

    • Focus is on achieving measurable results.

• Market-Oriented Governance:

  • Crime control integrates principles of neoliberal governance, emphasizing:

    • Privatization of certain functions (e.g., private security).

    • Partnerships with non-state actors.

    • Outsourcing and cost-saving measures.

• Quantification and Performance Metrics:

  • Reliance on performance indicators:

    • Crime rates.

    • Recidivism statistics.

    • Policing efficiency.

  • Success is measured in terms of:

    • Reduction in criminal incidents.

    • Economic savings.

5. Impacts of the New Culture of Crime Control

• Symbolic and Practical Reconfigurations:

  • Actions and practices of crime control agencies gain new symbolic meaning:

    • They project security and reassurance rather than just punitive authority.

    • Penal actions are framed as rational responses to societal risks.

• Integration of Non-State Actors:

  • Community groups, private corporations, and local agencies play key roles in:

    • Risk assessment.

    • Crime prevention.

    • Security provision.

• Central Role of Public Perception:

  • Crime control practices are shaped to:

    • Align with public fears and concerns.

    • Enhance trust in the system’s ability to manage risk.

6. Key Features of the New Culture

• Focus on Risk and Prevention:

  • Crime control is preemptive, targeting potential threats before harm occurs.

• Data-Driven Decision-Making:

  • Technologies and analytics guide strategies and resource allocation.

• Accountability and Transparency:

  • Agencies operate under closer scrutiny, with an emphasis on proving their effectiveness to stakeholders.

7. Summary

• The new culture of crime control represents a shift in how crime and insecurity are understood and managed.

  • It emphasizes public protection, control over rehabilitation, and economic efficiency.

• This cultural framework shapes the goals, tools, and practices of crime control in late modern society:

  • Risk management replaces offender-centered approaches.

  • Collaboration between state and non-state actors becomes central.

  • Policies prioritize prevention, cost-efficiency, and measurable outcomes over traditional punitive or rehabilitative models.

The transformation of penal-welfarism

Introduction: The Shift from Welfare to Penal Focus

• Key Trend: A notable shift from rehabilitative, welfare-oriented justice to punitive, control-focused practices.

  • Sentencing Law: Prioritizes retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence.

  • Probation: Positioned as punishment within the community rather than a social work alternative.

  • Juvenile Courts: Increased focus on guilt and responsibility, harsher sentencing, often transferring cases to adult courts.

  • Custodial Institutions for Youth: Emphasis on security over education or rehabilitation; mimic adult prisons.

  • Parole Agencies: Stress public protection, close monitoring, and frequent re-incarceration for violations.

Evolving Meanings of Penal and Welfare Modalities

• Penal Mode:

  • More punitive, expressive, and security-focused.

  • Prioritizes public safety, fixed punishment, and hard treatment.

• Welfare Mode:

  • Conditional and risk-conscious.

  • Depicts offenders as dangerous individuals to be controlled rather than as socially deprived citizens needing support.

Rehabilitation Redefined

• Contemporary Focus:

  • Offense-centric over client-centric.

  • Targets "offense behavior" rather than individual needs or welfare.

• Purpose:

  • Protect future victims rather than rehabilitate offenders.

  • Reduces crime and public risk; emphasizes cost-effectiveness.

• Framework:

  • Embedded in risk management, not welfare ideals.

  • Uses evidence-based programs like drug-abuse treatment or anger management to manage risks.

  • Rehabilitation seen as an optional investment, closely monitored for returns.

Probation Repositioned

• Transition:

  • From "assist, advise, and befriend" to strict supervision, crime reduction, and public protection.

  • Incorporates penalties such as curfews, tagging, and intensive supervision.

• Credibility Issues:

  • Public and judicial skepticism about probation as a valid punishment.

• Resource Allocation:

  • "Match input to risk" approach; intensive services reserved for high-risk offenders.

The Reinvented Prison

• Modern Role:

  • From Rehabilitative to Exclusionary: Prisons act as zones of exclusion and quarantine for "dangerous" individuals.

  • Security Over Reform: Fortified barriers, stricter early release conditions, and monitoring of parolees.

• Social Context:

  • Loss of social support systems (jobs, welfare, family) weakens reintegration efforts.

  • Prisons serve as long-term solutions for societal exclusion (e.g., impoverished and marginalized populations).

  • Increasing use of prisons as repositories for the mentally ill and economically disadvantaged.

The New Individualization: Victim vs. Offender

• Shift in Focus:

  • Victim-Centric: Enhanced victim rights, impact statements, and involvement in sentencing decisions.

  • Abstracted Offenders: Standardized sentencing guidelines reduce focus on offender individuality.

• Punishment-at-a-Distance:

  • Legislatively determined penalties remove individualization from sentencing.

  • Victims gain individualized attention; offenders lose their personal narratives in legal processes.

Society-Offender Relations

• Conflict of Interests:

  • Offenders’ interests viewed as diametrically opposed to public safety.

  • Offenders framed as risks rather than individuals with rights or potential for reform.

• Rights of Offenders:

  • Decline in respect for offenders’ legal rights and liberties.

  • Growth of practices like community notification laws and public criminal registries.

• Stigma:

  • Stigma now serves dual purposes: punishment and public protection.

  • Visible markers of criminality (e.g., uniforms, public registries) reintroduced.

Broader Social Dynamics

• Victimless Crimes:

  • Crimes like loitering, public drinking, and graffiti reframed as harm to "the community."

  • Policing targets minor infractions as threats to public safety.

• Exclusion and Control:

  • Societal divisions reinforce perceptions of offenders as "dangerous others."

  • Punitive policies disproportionately affect marginalized groups, compounding social inequities.

Conclusion: The Rise of Authoritarian Penality

• Authoritarian Shift:

  • Penal-welfare ideals (offenders as citizens) replaced by public safety as the paramount goal.

  • Fear and insecurity foster complacency about the repressive power of the state.

• Implications:

  • Offenders seen as irredeemable "others."

  • The public prioritizes victim protection and crime prevention over offender rights and rehabilitation.

The criminology of control

Overview of Contemporary Criminology

• Over the past 20 years, criminological thought has diversified, departing from the older social welfare criminology.

  • Social welfare criminology viewed criminality as a result of social deprivation and emphasized rehabilitation.

  • It remains relevant but competes with two newer criminologies:

    • Criminologies of Everyday Life

    • Criminologies of the Other

  • Both emerge as critiques of penal modernism and appeal to policymakers for different reasons.

The Criminologies of Everyday Life

• Characterization:

  • Late-modern, pragmatic, amoral, and focused on systemic modifications.

  • Sees crime as a normal outcome of everyday social arrangements, not a moral failing or pathological disposition.

Key Concepts and Theories:

1. Situational Crime Prevention:

   • Focuses on modifying environments and reducing crime opportunities.

2. Routine Activity Theory:

   • Crime occurs when motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of guardianship converge.

3. System Integration vs. Social Integration:

   • Penal-welfare criminology prioritized social integration (changing offenders’ values to align with norms).

   • Everyday criminology focuses on system integration (ensuring processes and routines function smoothly).

Implications for Crime Control:

• Emphasizes situational engineering over social reform.

• Aligns systems (transport, housing, leisure, schools) to minimize security gaps and "hot spots."

• Focus is amoral:

  • Values and consensus are secondary to ensuring efficient systemic coordination.

  • Crime prevention becomes a technical task.

Advantages and Criticisms:

• Advantages:

  • Technologically advanced, practical, and neutral in appearance.

  • Aligns with non-punitive approaches without being "soft on crime."

• Criticisms:

  • Excludes marginalized groups, enabling segregation for system efficiency.

  • Often linked to zero-tolerance policing, with risks of repression, discrimination, and civil rights violations.

  • Can be overly influenced by commercial and market forces.

The Criminologies of the Other

• Characterization:

  • Anti-modern, moralistic, and re-dramatizes crime.

  • Depicts crime as a catastrophe and criminals as inherently wicked, irredeemable "others."

Central Themes:

1. Rejection of Modern Criminology:

   • Penal modernism’s failures are attributed to moral weakness and lack of punishment.

   • Distrusts liberal ideals and sociological explanations of crime.

2. Absolutist Moral Framework:

   • Offenders are seen as fundamentally different from "normal" people.

   • Crime is framed as a result of evil choices, not systemic or social causes.

Implications for Crime Control:

• Advocates social defense:

  • Society must protect itself from dangerous individuals.

  • Rehabilitation and understanding are rejected.

• Criminals are "beyond the pale":

  • No effort to humanize them or understand their motivations.

  • Punitive measures like mass incarceration or the death penalty are justified by this worldview.

Criticisms:

• Promotes authoritarianism and undermines liberal democratic principles.

• Ignores the structural causes of crime, focusing solely on moral condemnation.

• Reinforces social exclusion and stigma against marginalized groups.

Shared Features of the Two New Criminologies

1. Focus on Control:

   • Both emphasize crime control and public protection over prevention or rehabilitation.

2. Departure from Penal-Welfarism:

   • Reject the integrationist, reformative aims of penal-welfare criminology.

3. Alignment with Cultural Ambivalence:

   • Criminologies of Everyday Life:

     • "Crime is normal; adapt to it."

   • Criminologies of the Other:

     • "Crime is catastrophic; return to traditional values."

Comparison with Penal-Welfarism

• Penal-Welfarism (mid-20th century criminology):

  • Focused on offender correction through social reform.

  • Downplayed deterrence and policing.

  • Saw crime as a pathology, not normal behavior.

• New Criminologies:

  • Prioritize deterrence and policing as central crime control strategies.

  • Shift focus from pathological offenders to mundane, opportunistic ones.

Practical Shifts in Crime Control

1. Emphasis on Deterrence:

   • Revival of deterrent policies (e.g., mandatory minimums, stop-and-search practices).

   • Crime control now focuses on immediate disincentives rather than long-term reform.

2. Policing as a Central Tool:

   • The police are central to modern crime reduction strategies.

   • Methods like "broken windows" and zero-tolerance policing dominate, contrasting with past skepticism of deterrence.

3. Crime Reduction Strategies:

   • Situational controls shape conduct indirectly.

   • Punitive measures impose control externally.

The Cultural Context of Control

• These new criminologies resonate with cultural ambivalence:

  • Everyday Life Criminology aligns with pragmatic adaptation to crime as a fact of life.

  • Criminologies of the Other reflect anxieties about societal decline and a yearning for moral absolutism.

The Role of Social Sciences:

• Michel Foucault highlighted how criminology reflects broader cultural themes:

  • Social sciences uncover knowledge shaped by the cultural and historical context.

  • The emergence of these criminologies mirrors contemporary concerns about order, control, and moral boundaries.

Conclusion: Diverging but Complementary Approaches

• While fundamentally opposed in philosophy and methods:

  • Both criminologies emphasize control over understanding or rehabilitation.

  • They represent twin responses to the perceived failures of penal-welfarism.

• Policymakers find both appealing:

  • One offers a rational, adaptable framework for crime prevention.

  • The other fulfills moralistic demands for accountability and retribution.

• Together, they reinforce the culture of control, shaping the future trajectory of criminological thought and crime policy.

From a ‘social’ to an ‘economic’ style of reasoning

Institutional Styles of Reasoning

• Institutional Habits: Institutions develop ingrained habits of thought that shape decision-making, learned informally by new members.

  • These "recipes" are not formal theories but deeply embedded practices.

  • Once established, these habits are resistant to change but can evolve over time.

• Shift in Crime Control Thinking:

  • Old Model: Dominated by a social style of reasoning (crime as socially caused, requiring social solutions like counseling or reform).

  • New Model: Emergence of an economic style of reasoning over the last 30 years, influencing:

    • Resource allocation

    • Decision-making

    • Institutional self-management

Key Characteristics of the Social Style of Reasoning

• Focus on Social Context:

  • Crime was understood in relation to its broader social causes (poverty, inequality, family dynamics).

  • Solutions emphasized social provision (e.g., social work, counseling, reforms).

• Practices and Beliefs:

  • Criminals were seen as products of their social environment.

  • Reformative approaches prioritized addressing systemic and individual social issues.

Emergence of the Economic Style of Reasoning

1. Economic Framing:

   • Crime and its control are evaluated using economic principles like cost-benefit analysis, value-for-money, and fiscal responsibility.

   • Performance indicators and audits dominate decision-making.

2. Managerialism:

   • Derived from private-sector practices:

     • Emphasizes efficiency, accountability, and measurable outcomes.

   • Spread due to declining credibility of the old social approach and rising demand for economic accountability.

3. Key Concepts in the Economic Style:

   • Risk Factors: Criminal behavior is framed as an outcome of calculable risks.

   • Cost Analysis: Costs of crime and its prevention are carefully weighed.

   • Incentive Structures: Decision-making considers incentives for offenders and authorities alike.

   • Technological Oversight: Audits and data metrics become central to policing, sentencing, and prison management.

Impacts of the Economic Style of Reasoning

Positive Impacts:

• Efficiency: Emphasis on measurable outcomes ensures resources are used effectively.

• Focus on Prevention: Shifts attention to crime prevention over punishment.

Criticisms and Limitations:

1. Skewed Priorities:

   • Performance indicators may prioritize outputs (e.g., arrests made) over outcomes (e.g., long-term crime reduction).

   • Encourages practices that are measurable, not necessarily effective.

2. Reduced Discretion:

   • Field staff lose autonomy as managerial oversight dictates actions.

3. Shift in Perception of Crime and Criminals:

   • Offenders are viewed as rational agents making cost-benefit decisions, downplaying sociological or psychological complexities.

   • Victims are reconceptualized as enablers of criminal opportunities, shifting responsibility toward "risk management."

Cultural and Political Influences

• Neoliberal Ideologies:

  • Political shifts in the 1980s–1990s promoted market solutions, managerial efficiency, and economic rationality.

  • Politicians and funding authorities demanded accountability, measurable impact, and cost-effectiveness in crime control.

• Auditing and Performance Culture:

  • Criminal justice agencies became part of the broader "audit society."

  • Discretionary decision-making gave way to managerial controls, focusing on accountability through performance metrics.

Institutionalization of Economic Reasoning

• Influence of the Private Sector:

  • Insurance companies, security firms, and businesses approached crime prevention with economic logic, focusing on:

    • Cost minimization

    • Risk displacement rather than justice or fairness

• Adoption by State Agencies:

  • Criminal justice systems mirrored these practices, emphasizing economic accountability over traditional social justice approaches.

• Cultural Resonance:

  • Late modernity’s emphasis on consumerism and choice aligns with the economic reasoning framework.

  • Rational choice theories and cost-based frameworks resonate with broader societal values.

Contrasts with the Social Style of Reasoning

1. Shift in Criminal Conception:

   • Old: Sociological and psychological factors shaped offenders’ actions.

   • New: Offenders are rational decision-makers responding to incentives and risks.

2. Policy and Practice:

   • Old: Focused on systemic reforms, social work, and individual counseling.

   • New: Emphasizes "smart sentencing," resource targeting, and cost efficiency.

Challenges and Resistance

• Resistance from Practitioners:

  • Social workers, probation officers, and judges often view the economic framework as incompatible with justice.

  • Economic models oversimplify complex human behaviors and social contexts.

• Tensions with Justice Goals:

  • Economic reasoning often conflicts with the substantive goals of delivering justice, fairness, and rehabilitation.

Conclusion: The Persistence and Influence of Economic Reasoning

• Why It Took Root:

  • Decline in the credibility of social approaches.

  • Politico-cultural environment favoring market-driven solutions and accountability.

  • Economic reasoning offers a transferable and seemingly effective alternative.

• Future Implications:

  • The economic style of reasoning will likely continue to dominate, influencing criminological theory, criminal justice policies, and institutional practices.

  • However, tensions between measurable efficiency and the broader goals of justice may persist.

Key Themes and Takeaways

1. Transition from Social to Economic Frameworks:

   • Reflects broader societal changes toward neoliberalism and market logic.

2. Managerialism and Accountability:

   • Emphasis on audits, performance indicators, and cost-benefit analysis.

3. Redefinition of Crime and Criminals:

   • Crime viewed through risk management and economic cost frameworks.

   • Offenders seen as rational actors, victims as opportunity providers.

4. Critique of Economic Reasoning:

   • Risk of oversimplification, reduced focus on justice, and misaligned priorities in crime control.

The political limits of economic reasoning

Economic Reasoning vs. Expressive Responses

• Economic Framework in Crime Control:

  • Default decision-making style in modern institutions.

  • Focus on:

    • Cost-effectiveness

    • Purpose-rationality

    • Managerialism and measured efficiency.

• The Expressive/Sovereign Approach:

  • A contrasting mode of reasoning rooted in:

    • Moral absolutism

    • Symbolism and collective outrage.

    • Value rationality: prioritizing moral and symbolic goals over practical, calculated outcomes.

  • Example imperatives:

    • Protect the public at all costs.

    • Punish offenders to assert sovereign authority, regardless of cost-effectiveness.

Core Characteristics of the Expressive Mode

1. Moralistic and Absolutist:

   • Prioritizes moral outrage and symbolic gestures over cost-benefit calculations.

   • Acts as an assertion of sovereign power rather than an economically rational strategy.

2. Emotion-Driven and Symbolic:

   • Driven by public sentiment, collective outrage, and stereotypical images of danger.

   • Focus on symbolic reassurance to the public (e.g., "tough on crime" stances).

3. Examples of Expressive Policies:

   • War on Drugs:

     • Expensive, with questionable crime-control effectiveness.

   • California’s Three Strikes Law:

     • Imposes mandatory life sentences for repeat offenders.

   • Zero Tolerance Policing:

     • Inflexible enforcement regardless of crime severity.

   • ‘Prison Works’ (UK Policy):

     • Focuses on mass incarceration to incapacitate offenders.

Tensions Between Economic and Expressive Rationalities

1. Clashing Principles:

   • Economic Reasoning:

     • Prioritizes efficiency, accountability, and cost-effectiveness.

   • Expressive Reasoning:

     • Focuses on moral imperatives and symbolic reassurance, often "at any cost."

   • These principles are irreconcilable in practice.

2. Frustration Among Administrators:

   • Cost-conscious managers struggle with:

     • Expensive, resource-draining policies like the War on Drugs.

     • Public demand for punitive measures with little consideration of cost-effectiveness.

3. Political Calculations Over Criminological Logic:

   • Political actors shift between economic and expressive frameworks based on:

     • Public sentiment.

     • Short-term political gains.

   • Decisions are often incoherent and contradictory due to conflicting motivations.

Expressive Policies Masked as Economic Measures

1. Misleading Claims:

   • Some punitive policies are presented as cost-effective:

     • Mandatory minimums framed as reducing crime long-term through incapacitation.

     • Death penalty sometimes claimed as a cost-saving deterrent.

   • These claims are unsupported by actuarial data or meaningful economic analysis.

2. True Motivations:

   • Policies driven by stereotypical images of danger and moral judgments:

     • Recidivists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and violent predators are portrayed as irredeemable.

   • Focus on moral condemnation rather than risk management.

3. Example of Simplistic Risk Calculations:

   • Public officials often adopt an absolute zero-risk mindset:

     • Any risk of harm from an offender’s release outweighs their liberty interests.

     • Decisions prioritize political safety over actuarial or criminological considerations.

Political Dynamics and the Role of Offenders

1. Offenders’ Marginalization:

   • Lack of political importance or social status limits attention to their actuarial risk.

   • Their prior offending record:

     • Impacts moral status more than actuarial evaluations.

     • Leads to harsher treatment justified by moralistic rhetoric.

2. Political Risk Aversion:

   • Politicians prefer:

     • Appearing tough on crime.

     • Avoiding backlash from public outrage over perceived leniency.

   • Result:

     • Risk assessments for release decisions are politically skewed, favoring detention.

Key Examples Highlighting the Expressive Approach

1. The War on Drugs:

   • Focuses on punitive measures rather than prevention or treatment.

   • Ignores evidence about the high costs and limited effectiveness of such policies.

   • Driven by symbolic gestures of control rather than practical results.

2. Mandatory Sentencing Laws (e.g., Three Strikes):

   • Imposes severe penalties, disregarding:

     • Economic costs of mass incarceration.

     • Evidence about diminishing returns on deterrence and crime reduction.

3. Zero Tolerance Policies:

   • Implements harsh enforcement, regardless of context or proportionality.

   • Prioritizes symbolic toughness over nuanced, strategic interventions.

Consequences of Expressive Policies

1. Economic Inefficiency:

   • High financial costs, with limited impact on crime rates or public safety.

   • Strains public resources without demonstrable effectiveness.

2. Undermines Actuarial Practices:

   • Risk assessments and cost analyses are disregarded or manipulated.

   • Policies shaped by moral panic rather than evidence-based reasoning.

3. Dehumanization of Offenders:

   • Offenders are stripped of legal rights and moral claims.

   • Viewed as irredeemably wicked, reinforcing intolerance and punitive excess.

Conclusion: Political Limits of Economic Reasoning

1. Expressive Reasoning as a Political Tool:

   • Politicians leverage moralistic, symbolic policies to gain public approval.

   • These policies prioritize public reassurance and political safety over practical effectiveness.

2. Contradictions in Crime Control:

   • Economic and expressive modes of reasoning coexist uneasily, driven by competing institutional and political priorities.

   • The result is a fragmented, inconsistent approach to crime and justice.

3. Broader Implications:

   • Economic reasoning’s focus on cost-effectiveness faces limits when political and public pressures demand uncompromising punitive measures.

   • The enduring influence of expressive policies reflects a deeper tension between practical governance and symbolic assertions of authority.

Key Themes and Takeaways

• Economic vs. Expressive Rationality:

  • Economic: Strategic, cost-effective, risk-conscious.

  • Expressive: Moralistic, absolutist, symbolic.

• Political Influences:

  • Political actors shift between these frameworks based on short-term interests and public sentiment.

  • Punitive measures often mask their true motivations behind flawed economic justifications.

• Impact on Offenders:

  • Offenders are dehumanized, judged on moral worth rather than evidence-based assessments.

  • Public safety is prioritized at any cost, often with inefficient outcomes.