Notes on: What Can Political Science Contribute to the Study of Criminal Justice in Canada?

Overview

• Article argues that Canadian political scientists have paid more attention to criminal justice (CJ) than is commonly believed, but their contribution could be expanded through greater disciplinary exchange.

• Identifies three strengths that political science can bring to CJ research:

  • First, the policy process and how it shapes criminal justice policy formation.

  • Second, the limits of public authority and the rights of citizens vis-a` -vis the state within the CJ context.

  • Third, distinctive methodological, theoretical, and normative perspectives in CJ compared to other disciplines.

• Concludes by outlining potential impediments to greater political science engagement in CJ and suggests avenues to enhance existing contributions.

Core ideas and aims of the article

• Political scientists in Canada have historically engaged with criminological questions, but their work in CJ policy is relatively underutilized. Three strengths offer productive avenues for future research.

• The article emphasizes the value of cross-disciplinary dialogue between political science and criminology, sociology, and law.

• Scope focuses on CJ policy and governance (police, courts, corrections, Justice/National Public Safety) and touches on related policies (e.g., violence against women) but does not exhaust broader social policy.

• Methodological stance favors mid-range, institutionally informed explanations over broad, overly deterministic theories; empirical orientation is stressed.

Three strengths political science can contribute to CJ (and why they matter)

• 1) Influence of the policy process on CJ policy formation

  • Political scientists are well positioned to study how the policy process shapes CJ policies.

  • Emphasis on the policy cycle: ext{agenda setting}, ext{decision making}, ext{implementation}, ext{evaluation}.

  • Solomon (1981) argued for analyzing interactions among the public, politicians, and professionals across the policy cycle; though this call was not widely heeded, it remains central.

• 2) Public authority, rights, and the state in CJ

  • Addresses how citizens’ rights vis-à-vis the state manifest in CJ contexts (e.g., policing, arrests, trials, sentencing, and rights-based reform).

  • Politically grounded insights into how institutions manage power and accountability within CJ.

• 3) Methodological, theoretical, and normative contributions

  • Political science offers perspectives that challenge some criminology/sociology/law-in-CJ norms.

  • Brings distinct analytical tools and normative questions about governance, checks-and-balances, and the balance of rights and security.

Scope and approach of the literature review (how the authors surveyed CJ in political science)

• Literature identified through:

  • Electronic searches of Canadian Journal of Political Science, Canadian Public Administration, Canadian Public Policy.

  • A call for research assistance via the Canadian Political Science Association listserv.

• Focused on core CJ system elements: police, courts, corrections, the Justice Department, public safety, and CJ policy issues (e.g., gun control).

• Acknowledges coverage gaps: broader social policies in the Criminal Code (e.g., assisted suicide) and human security (broadly defined).

• Notes disciplinary boundaries and occasional cross-over (e.g., political scientists with PhDs in political science working in criminology or law).

• Highlights need for more empirically ambitious CJ research in political science (beyond case studies of one or two jurisdictions).

Policy processes and policy development: institutionalist approaches

• Core claim: political scientists can illuminate how policy-making dynamics shape CJ policy.

• New institutionalism (and related mid-range approaches) foreground three roles of institutions:

  • (1) State actors can have independent agendas and power sources.

  • (2) Institutions are sets of rules (e.g., electoral, constitutional) that structure strategies and advantages for some actors.

  • (3) Institutions shape preferences and discourse within the policy process.

• These views emphasize politics and contingent policy outcomes, contrasting with more general theories (e.g., neo-Marxism, political culture, rational choice).

• Examples illustrating these approaches:

  • Leslie Pal (2000): institutional differences between Canada’s parliamentary system and the U.S. presidential system help explain gun policy differences; public attitudes toward gun control are similar, but institutional structure and interest-group dynamics drive divergent policy outcomes.

  • Montreal Massacre context: Justice Minister Alan Rock leveraged majority government and party discipline to push tighter gun regulations, including a gun registry; illustrates how institutional power and party dynamics shape policy results.

  • Janet Hiebert (2002): Charter of Rights impact on policy across areas (DNA database, DNA evidence, warrantless arrests, and sexual assault trial rules). Courts’ constitutional rulings interact with policy formation and legislative responses.

• Critique and trade-off: institutionalist explanations can verge on thick description, but are argued to better reflect real-world policy dynamics than some broad theories.

• Broader implication: institutions and the policy process are central to understanding CJ policy changes (e.g., how rights discourse shifts under Charter-era governance).

Public authority and accountability in CJ

• Core tension: balancing the judiciary’s role in interpreting rights with the elected legislature’s role in policy and governance.

• Hiebert (2002) argues for shared responsibility between Parliament and courts in interpreting rights, and calls for reform to empower legislative committees to scrutinize rights implications more thoroughly.

• Gaps in CJ governance research identified: relatively little attention to prison governance and policing (despite policing being central to CJ).

• Notable political-science-informed contributions on policing and police governance:

  • Lorne Sossin (2007): argues for a system of apolitical (non-partisan) yet autonomous policing; complete independence is neither realistic nor desirable.

  • Whitaker and Russell on security intelligence governance (pre- and post-McDonald Commission): emphasis on balancing ministerial accountability with secrecy in security operations; led to CSIS and external oversight (SIRC).

  • Ipperwash Inquiry and related scholarship: critique and evaluation of police governance and indigenous rights; Field (2005) uses postmodern analysis (Gramsci) on hate crimes and police responses, highlighting methodological diversity within CJ studies.

• Broader governance themes:

  • Police independence, accountability, and the political management of policing in democracies (Canada and comparatives).

  • Effects of public administration reform (e.g., New Public Management) on police-government relationships.

  • Cross-national comparisons of policing models and their democratic foundations.

• Normative dimensions: questions about how to balance security with civil liberties; how to ensure meaningful oversight while protecting national security interests.

Methodological, theoretical, and normative perspectives in CJ

• Most political-science CJ work relies on mid-range theories with empirical orientation.

• Russell (1984) critiques “controlology” in criminology for relying on theory-driven conclusions without solid data, arguing for empirically grounded analysis of police behavior and CJ outcomes.

• Ericson’s work (1982) on police as a potential source of political implications is used to illustrate how empirical evidence can illuminate policy-relevant dynamics.

• Collier (2008): provincial policies to prevent violence against women; finds that partisan ideology often explains policy choices more than neo-liberalism; shelters, police directives, and expenditures from 1985–2005 are used to illustrate policy formation patterns.

• Contributions from political scientists to CJ can go beyond outcomes to illuminate patterns of authority and accountability (e.g., Hiebert’s work on courts vs legislatures).

• Dupont (2006): organizational fields approach to security governance; stresses the power struggles among institutions involved in security (public, private, and hybrid actors) and the democratic implications.

• Normative contributions: political scientists can offer conservative perspectives that shed light on liberal criminology assumptions; e.g., some conservative scholars can illuminate potential weaknesses in liberal arguments and highlight reform pathways within the liberal framework.

• Overall claim: political science as a discipline challenges and enriches CJ by questioning normative assumptions and offering alternative governance models and empirical patterns.

Case illustrations and empirical relevance

• Gun control policy in Canada vs the United States (Pal 2000): institutional differences influence policy outcomes beyond public opinion.

• DNA database and Charter rights (Hiebert 2002): constitutional decisions shape policy design and the use of new technologies in CJ.

• Seaboyer (1991) and subsequent legal reforms: balancing evidentiary rules with fair-trial rights; parliamentary amendments in response to court decisions.

• Police governance and Ipperwash Inquiry (Sossin, Field, others): the CJ literature increasingly intersects with inquiries into policing, Indigenous rights, and hate crimes.

• Security intelligence governance (Russell, Whitaker): the balance between secrecy and democratic accountability in national security scales.

Practical implications, challenges, and future directions

• Challenges to expanding political-science contributions to CJ:

  • Limited numbers of political scientists prioritizing CJ; potential scarcity of CJ-focused positions in political science departments.

  • Fragmented collaborations between political science and criminology/sociology departments; need for institutional integration (e.g., joint programs like University of Guelph’s Criminal Justice and Public Policy program).

• Opportunities to bridge gaps:

  • Greater emphasis on federalism and the roles of provinces and cities in CJ policy and governance.

  • More ambitious data collection beyond single jurisdictions or limited interview counts; possible import of robust US CJ-political science methodologies (e.g., Court implementation studies).

  • Increasing attention to indigenous issues, Aboriginal rights, and marginalized groups within CJ, in line with contemporary inquiries.

• Real-world relevance and emerging trends:

  • Heightened interest in intra- and inter-state security issues and the blurred boundary between CJ and security policy.

  • Contemporary policy agendas (e.g., post-Ipperwash reforms, hate-crimes policy, victims’ rights, and crime-prevention strategies) offer fertile ground for political-science CJ research.

• Optimism for integration:

  • Growing cross-disciplinary programs and editorial interest in CJ topics within political science curricula may create a tipping point for the field.

  • Collaborative research between political scientists, criminologists, and sociologists could lead to richer, more comprehensive CJ scholarship in Canada.

Key takeaways for studying CJ through political science (summary)

• CJ policy is shaped by political and policy-process dynamics; political scientists can analyze agenda setting, decision making, implementation, and evaluation to explain policy outcomes.

• The Charter of Rights and institutional arrangements (courts, legislatures, police, and executive branches) interact to shape CJ policy; mid-range institutional theories offer practical insight into these processes.

• Public authority and accountability are central themes; there is a need to rethink parliamentary oversight, parliamentary committee empowerment, and the balance between police autonomy and political governance.

• Methodological and normative contributions from political science provide alternative lenses (e.g., power dynamics, governance models, and rights-focused analyses) that can complement criminology and law perspectives.

• Advancing this field requires more empirical field research, cross-jurisdictional comparisons, and closer collaboration between political science and CJ disciplines, including joint degree programs and interdisciplinary research centers.

LaTeX references and notable terms

• Policy cycle: ext{agenda setting}, ext{decision making}, ext{implementation}, ext{evaluation}

• Population/time reference: 2{,}000 years ago

• Institutions and governance: new institutionalism; organizational fields; governance of security

• Key case references: Seaboyer (1991); DNA database; Charter of Rights (1982); Ipperwash Inquiry; Rock’s gun legislation (Montreal Massacre context)

• Notable authors cited: Solomon (1981, 1983), Pal (2000), Hiebert (2002), Dupont (2006), Russell (1984, 2007), Collier (2008), Sossin (2007), Field (2005)