1,721,063 research outputs found
Punishment and the 'blind symbiosis' of legal and rehabilitation work in the making of the 'ideal' defendant
Full text linkJudges, lawyers, probation and other professionals have to see themselves delivering legitimate punishment and control, rather than imposing unjustified coercion. Yet these professionals know they are also obliged to dispose of cases expeditiously. Most scholarly work on this apparent contradiction between ‘justice’ and ‘efficiency’ has been limited to a focus on the moral intentions of individual professionals. In contrast to this prevailing approach, and illustrated with examples from empirical research, I argue that the appearance of the contradiction is managed and often resolved in adversarial jurisdictions by the effects of unobtrusive inter-professional casework. Though they are officially separate professional and temporal activities, I show how the guilt-determination casework of judges and lawyers on the one hand and, on the other hand, the rehabilitation practices of probation, social work and other therapeutic professionals tacitly work together symbiotically. This symbiotic case-working realigns with and approximates the person’s account and posture to that of the ‘ideal’ defendant (or penal subject), who is seen voluntarily to accept responsibility and show remorse. This realignment of the person eases for professionals the apparent dilemma of balancing justice with efficiency. However, this symbiosis is not, and could not be, achieved by a planned conspiracy. Instead, it is enabled by the mutual blindness of one profession to the detailed, substantive work of the other. This mutual blindness is based on the depiction of criminal justice in the adversarial tradition as a step-by-step sequence of autonomous decision moments, each under the dominion of separate professions. Finally, I explore the implications for future research agendas
Locating the ideal defendant : punishment, violence and legitimacy
Full text linkThis chapter outlines the central propositions of this book as a whole by drawing on its component chapters. In a nutshell, the book demonstrates that, within a variety of criminal justice systems, an implicit model of the ‘ideal defendant’ is at work. There is an expectation that defendants (by which we mean anyone proceeded against by the state) should display certain characteristics. This model of the ideal defendant is based on individual character, and on attitudes towards the state, the alleged offence and likely future offending. A key component of these norms is that defendants are expected to demonstrate a free and sincere acceptance of their personal responsibility for the offending. Ideally, this admission of responsibility should be so wholehearted that defendants can be seen as expressing ‘genuine’ remorse. While this is the ultimate ideal and defendants’ representations typically fall short of this, they are nonetheless encouraged to align themselves as closely as possible to that ideal. These expectations of defendants are brought home to them at all stages of their journey through the system not just by judges and prosecutors, but also by lawyers, probation officers and therapeutic professionals (eg psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers). Defendants are evaluated on the extent to which they perform in accordance with the ideal. This ‘grading’ of defendant emotion and its expression has consequences – whether negative or positive – for the subsequent state penal response to the defendant. In practice, encouragement and evaluation mesh so that expressions of remorse-like feelings and responsibility are constructed through interactions between defendant and criminal justice practitioners. This ‘making’ of remorse and responsibility is fraught with cultural misinterpretations and unrealistic expectations of particular defendants. Yet, the public acknowledgement by defendants of the legitimacy of their own punishment serves a latent function: it reassures practitioners that the routine coercion of their systemic practices does not represent injustice. It also enables the enactment of an apparent mutuality between state and citizen at a moment of rupture in that relationship
Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process
No full textThis article contends that it is time to take a critical look at a series of binary categories which have dominated the scholarly and reform epistemologies of the sentencing decision process. These binaries are: rules versus discretion; reason versus emotion; offence versus offender; normative principles versus incoherence; aggravating versus mitigating factors; and aggregate/tariff consistency versus individualized sentencing. These binaries underpin both the 'legal-rational' tradition (by which I mean a view of discretion as inherently suspect, a preference for the use of philosophy of punishment justifications and an explanation of the decision process through factors or variables), and also the more recent rise of the 'new penology'. Both approaches tend to rely on 'top-down' assumptions of change, which pay limited attention to the agency of penal workers. The article seeks to develop a conception of sentencing craftwork as a social and interpretive process.1 In so doing, it applies and develops a number of Kritzer's observations (in this issue) about craftwork to sentencing. These craftwork observations are: problem solving (applied to the rules - discretion and reason - emotion dichotomies); skills and techniques (normative penal principles and the use of cognitive analytical assumptions); consistency (tariff versus individualized sentencing); clientele (applied to account giving and the reality of decision making versus expression). By conceiving of sentencing as craftwork, the binary epistemologies of the sentencing decision process, which have dominated (and limited) the scholarly and policy sentencing imaginations, are revealed as dynamic, contingent, and synergistic. However, this is not to say that such binaries are no more than empty rhetoric concealing the reality of the decision process. Rather, these binaries serve as crucial legitimating reference points in the vocabulary of sentencing account giving
When paying the piper gets the 'wrong' tune : the impact of fixed payments on case management, case trajectories and 'quality' in criminal defence work
No full textDo changes to the structure and level of legal aid payments significantly affect the trajectories of criminal cases? Do these changes make a difference to how defence lawyers handle cases, how they negotiate with prosecutors and how clients are advised to plead? In recent years, Scotland has made major changes to the remuneration structures for criminal defence work. This paper reports on a research study examining the impact of one of these changes: the move to 'fixed payments'. It seeks to contribute to international knowledge about the relationship between legal aid payment regimes and criminal case trajectories. Furthermore, are there any important consequences for clients, or, are changes simply absorbed by lawyers, or neutralised by other developments? The paper explains that the objective of the fixed payments policy (to encourage greater 'efficiency' in the criminal process) was contradicted by other consequences, which were unexpected by the architects of the policy
Sentencing : A Social Process : Re-thinking Research and Policy
No full textHow we should we make sense of sentencing? Despite huge efforts world-wide to analyse, critique and reform sentencing, why does it remain an enigma? Sentencing: a Social Process reveals how both research and policy-thinking about sentencing are dominated by a paradigm of presumed autonomous individualism, projecting an artificial image of sentencing practices. Sentencing: a Social Process proposes a fresh approach. By conceiving sentencing as a social process taken-for-granted binary oppositions, (e.g. rules versus discretion; aggravating versus mitigating factors; offence versus offender; individualisation versus consistency; punishment versus rehabilitation), can be reimagined. Advancing new research and policy agendas, the book releases fresh thinking about classic conundrums, including: ways of reducing imprisonment; the efficiency and the quality of justice; punishment and humane treatment; and technology and judgement. Praise for Sentencing: A Social Process. '“Sentencing: A Social Process offers a highly original and constructive re-thinking of policy and research. It enriches and enlivens a debate that is too often polarized and unproductive.” Susan Bandes, Centennial Distinguished Professor De Paul Law School, USA. “Breaks the chains of moral individualism that bind our understanding of sentencing and our attempts to reform it.” Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology & Social Work, Glasgow University. “Cyrus Tata is a pioneering thinker in sentencing research and this book convincingly develops his position against depictions of sentencing as individualistic actions by autonomous judges.” Kristel Beyens, Professor of Criminology and Penology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. "Elegantly and directly, this book re-frames sentencing as a complex, multifaceted and mediated process. Essential reading for anyone involved and interested in sentencing and the criminal justice system." Sharyn Roach Anleu, Matthew Flinders Distinguished Professor, Flinders University, Australia. "Tata shows in a brilliant way how our impatience to realise change, obstructs our capacity to observe how sentencing processes really work." Miranda Boone, Professor of Criminology, Leiden University, Netherlands. Book Reviews. “Tata’s book is persuasively and beautifully written. It is clear and well structured, and both informative and challenging. It is an inspiring work, and ought to be read and enjoyed both by academics and reflective professionals from legal and therapeutic professions.” The Journal of Law & Society. “A lively and compellingly original scholarly foray into sentencing research.” Centre for Crime & Justice Studies. “An invitation to rethink existing orthodoxies…Eminently approachable, and deserves to be widely read." Punishment & Society: The International Journal of Penology. “Every once in a while, a work appears that mounts a robust challenge to some of our most fundamental assumptions about sentencing. Cyrus Tata’s new book, is one such work.” Sentencing, Crime & Justice. “This eminently readable book…piercing the mystique of sentencing” International Journal of Crime, Justice & Social Democracy. “A convincing critique of contemporary sentencing research and policy literatures. Eloquently and eruditely written, Tata’s book…makes an impressive contribution to the current state of literature in sentencing research and policy is a must-read for anyone interested in sentencing decision-making.” Probation Journa
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
