 |
Chapter contents. Matthew Hall. Introduction. Globalization and criminal justice
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER CONTENTS
· Introduction 456
· Globalization and Criminal Justice 456
· Comparative Work in Crime and Criminology 458
· Comparative Research in Practice 462
· Comparative Work ‘Post’-Globalization? 467
· Summary and Review 469
· Study Questions for Students 469
· Suggestions for Further Reading 470
· References 471
GLOSSARY TERMS
comparative methodology longitudinal studies
cross-sectional studies sampling error
DOING COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Matthew Hall
INTRODUCTION
Increasingly, as the forces of globalization have developed, criminologists have been called upon to examine crime and criminal justice issues in a so-called comparative context – that is to say, gathering information and data from each jurisdiction and comparing such phenomena between countries. Whilst at the outset this may seem a relatively straightforward task, many countries, broadly speaking, experience similar kinds of crime problem and utilize similar kinds of criminal justice responses, and though comparative work has many advantages over limiting research to a sin- gle jurisdiction, it can bring particular complications. This chapter will open with some discussion of globalization in relation to criminal justice and how that process has increasingly put the onus on criminologists to consider the criminal justice realms beyond their own national borders. The chapter will then focus on some of the methodological approaches that have been taken to comparative study, drawing on methodological literature from this field and delving into the specifics and the complexities of carrying out comparative research. The following section will then draw on a number of studies as exemplars of comparative research in action: com- menting on both the positive aspects of these studies as well as their limitations. The section will draw on issues of policing, crime and victimization as key examples of areas in which comparative study has taken place. The chapter will also look ahead to what has been called the slowing down or even the ‘death’ of globalization to question what issues this may raise for comparative criminological research in the coming years.
|
|
|
GLOBALIZATION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Up until quite recently, systematic comparison of the approaches taken by differ- ent states to crime and criminal justice was relatively uncommon in the mainstream criminological literature (Nelken, 2007). When such comparison did take place, it often involved subjecting different criminal justice systems around the world to blanket categorization into adversarial or inquisitorial models (Nagorcka et al., 2005). The former system is that used in the UK and most of its former territories and is characterized by an evidential contest between prosecution and defence before what are usually lay finders of fact (either juries or magistrates). The pro- cess is adjudicated by an impartial judge whose role is restricted to determining questions of law. In the latter model, used principally in mainland Europe, the judge takes a more active role, in most cases determining facts and law based on the collective production of a dossier on a case by prosecution and defence. Over time, however, scholars began to adopt a more sophisticated approach. One per- tinent example is the work of Cavadino and Dignan (2007), who drew on
comparative analysis of the penal systems across eight jurisdictions in order to categorise those jurisdictions based on the dominant political ideology taken to crime and criminal justice.
In more recent years, an increased focus on comparative work in many areas of social science has frequently been discussed alongside the overarching concept of ‘globalization’ (see Loader and Sparks, 2007). Most commonly, the term ‘globaliza- tion’ has been used to convey a sense of increasing transnational interconnectedness between processes previously isolated within individual states. Nevertheless, despite broad agreement over the existence and impacts of globalization, the concept itself remains markedly loose: a rhetorical shorthand for a whole collection of macro- social phenomena. Reinicke (1997), for example, criticizes the fact that the term ‘globalization’ is often used interchangeably with ‘interdependence’.
Several commentators have attempted to be more specific about the meaning of globalization. For both Beerkens (2004) and Giddens (1990), for example, the key characteristic of globalization is the decoupling of time and space. Scholte (2000) pre- fers to think of globalization as ‘deterritorialisation’ (p. 46) whilst also emphasizing that ‘the only consensus about globalisation is that it is contested’ (p. 41). Indeed, such is the conceptual confusion surrounding globalization that Wallerstein (2000: 28) expresses doubts as to the overall utility of the term: ‘Personally I think it [globaliza- tion] is meaningless as an analytical concept and serves primarily as a term of political exhortation. ’
In the criminal justice sphere, the influence of globalization tends to be illustrated by reference to a recent emphasis in multiple jurisdictions on the management of risk, a rise in what Bottoms (1995) labelled ‘populist punitiveness’, and the general swing towards crime control at the expense (it is argued) of due process. This is especially so in relation to certain forms of major transnational crime, which are often conceptualized as a threat to security. Examples of such threats include issues of migration, environmental harm, human trafficking, tax evasion and international terrorism.
|
|
|
It is evident then that the forces of globalization have created great synergies between traditionally disparate criminal systems. We can also see that criminal policy in many different countries has coalesced around common issues, driven by both formal international institutions and broader macro-sociological processes. In the latter case, Boutellier (2000) argues that, in our post-modern society of secularized morality, the moral legitimacy of the criminal law is no longer self-evident. For Boutellier, the only public morality to survive this secularization is the awareness people retain for each other’s suffering. This leaves us with a negative frame of refer- ence for morality and leaves victims of suffering as the focal point for establishing the moral legitimacy of criminal law. The pain suffered by crime victims becomes a metaphor for wrongful conduct, replacing metaphors of community or collective consciousness. Boutellier calls this the ‘victimalization of morality’ and it might be taken to explain one of the comparative themes discussed below – the greater atten- tion paid to victims of crime.
Garland (2001) similarly explains the emergence of parallel criminal justice poli- cies in different countries as one aspect of a change in mood concerning criminal justice, reflecting broader social changes witnessed across Western jurisdictions. For Garland, this development is grounded in the collapse of support for penal-welfarism in the 1970s, constituted by a loss of faith in the rehabilitative ideal. This heralded a ‘fundamental disenchantment’ with the criminal justice system and a loss of faith in its ability to control crime. Consequently, we have seen a shift in focus away from the causes of crime onto its consequences, including victimization. Governments faced with such problems redefine what it means to have a successful criminal justice system, by portraying crime as something the state has little control over. The gov- ernment therefore focuses on the management of criminal justice. In the face of growing concern that little can be done about crime, Garland argues that govern- ments deny their failure by turning to ever more punitive policies.
|
|
|
