The Cultural Politics of Justice

Campbell, E. (2011) Theoretical Criminology, The cultural politics of justice: Bakhtin, stand-up comedy and post-9/11 securitization, 15(2), 159-177

The emergence of cultural criminology has provided academics with many new and intriguing lenses on the world. The importance of cultural criminology has often been in its higher vantage point and its stated aim to consider not only the criminal justice system in its operational capacity, but the society in which this functions, and the cultural roots and legitimacy of the system itself; the awareness that representations are important.

In 'The cultural politics of justice' Elaine Campbell presents some challenging concepts on the use of language, making the first reading a somewhat daunting task. The articulation of her thesis, for those who were uninitiated with the theoretical groundings, required some reading around which had the happy result of unearthing further work on the nature of discourse. Using a dyad of literary theorists/philsophers, Campbell considers the positions of Jürgen Habermas and Mikhail Bakhtin and their diverging views on language and meaning. Bakhtin's dialogism versus Habermasian clarity of language. In Habermasian discourse ethics, it is believed that the potential for reason and compromise was inherent in communications and that through consensus society could establish normative truths. Bakhtin alternatively viewed language as always shadowing earlier utterances, always operating in an interpretative context and inherently contestable. Which of these expressions accurately accounts for the manner in which stand-up comedians tackle conceptions of 'justice'.

Bakhtin, in his study of the work of French Renaissance writer Rabelais, pulled out themes of the carnival and the grotesquerie and spoke of that lewd and subversive folk humour inherent in the writings. Campbell updates this concept for the present-day with idea of stand-up comedians as the successors to this.

The juxtaposition of the 'carnival' and 'grotesque realism' is reminiscent of Foucault's description of gallows and scaffolds entertainments, so vividly portrayed in Discipline and Punish. The humour and festivities of the common people as they gather for the execution and their subversive take on proceedings.

The censorship of various modes of speech during a crackdown on securitisation is spoken of in the article. A recent, British example involves the case of Paul Chambers, who made the mistake of tweeting his annoyance at the closure of Robin Hood Airport. The tweet, seemingly innocuous "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" provoked a police and judicial reaction which betrayed the low levels of tolerance currently exhibited towards risque jokes involving national security in some countries. However, those following the case on Twitter displayed a cheering 'counterpublic' sphere reaction with the adoption of the solidarity hashtag #IAmSpartacus.

However, we felt that humour can also be used to disguise prejudice. Someone like Bernard Manning, who is rarely, if ever seen on TV, draws large crowds of people who are excited about seeing someone who represents a world which is not inhibited by P.C language. What we see on televised stand-up shows consists in the main of a sanitised humour, cleansed of much of the right-wing comedy that is still common in society.

The article presents an imaginative means of thinking about justice and societal concepts of the same, we should always welcome a new position from which to assess these often taken-for-granted concepts.

An important question raised during our discussion was about how far can comedy go in terms of activism. Certainly there have been some good examples, such as George Carlin's 1972 'Seven Words' routine, in which he reflected on what he saw as a censorship stranglehold on broadcasting in America. This became the centre of public debate, news stories and a legal case. Today though it seems that successful satire must capture rather than rage against the zeitgeist. How far can we say that these comedians are trailblazers and how far are they simply reflecting back at us the comedy that we have generated in response to particular situations, such as surreal procedures now associated with airline travel and security checks.

Comedians, satirists, polemicists such as Michael Moore, Mark Thomas and Ian Hislop are in the business of passing a wry eye over political and current affairs, fusing humour and issues of concern. Russell Brand's article in the Guardian, in the aftermath of the English riots is something to consider here. Relevant, told with a certain humour, and talking around ideas of relative deprivation, consumerism, anomie and dominant culture.

Campbell mentions, as she transcribes some of the stand-up routines, that there is often a moment of nervous audience laughter. Does stand-up that touches these hard-to-reach and cringing parts cause self-reflection in the audience? When asked to consider an assumed prejudice, or asked to probe and find one's own hidden stereotypical shorthand, do comedians succeed in making their listeners rethink their own ideas about justice?

Humour is an inescapable part of the human condition, we find it in the bleakest of situations, it appears as an irrepressible component of how we interact with others. For this simple reason it seems straightforward that how we use humour to explore our world is an integral means of understanding how we see the world. It is another tool used to create the web of meanings that comprises society.

This month’s blog was written by Lynsey Black and Louise Brangan.

The views expressed in this blog are the authors' alone.

Manifesto Discussion GE11

Monday 28^th February 2011

In the wake of the historic 2011 Irish Election, the Differential Association gathered to rake over the coals of empty/half full promises, attempting to get to grips with what a future Government would try to do regarding criminal justice policy. Crystal balls at the ready, as we gazed into a future dominated by Fine Gael in coalition with a Labour partner.

A number of us favoured the Green Party manifesto, they were saying all the right things… a fact which only made the decimation of the party all the more poignant, as we assembled we knew there was to be no Green Party presence in the next Dáil, with possibly huge ramifications for the party’s funding.

In terms of the Fine Gael manifesto pledges, there was plenty of the good, lots of the worrying, and a dash of the befuddling.

Considering the barely there nature of criminal justice during election debates and the absence of crime as a doorstep issue (except for anti-social behaviour concerns and white-collar crime), the authors here hypothesised that this could be the time to pass all those far-reaching and progressive reforms we so fervently believe to be necessary. Without the hysteria of 1997, politicians could be unshackled from public and media demands for stronger locks and harsher punishments; we could seize the opportunity to undergo root-and-branch reform doing it quietly, and effectively. Reckoning on the ability of Ireland to undergo and fixate on only one crisis at a time, we estimated we could rework and revolutionise the criminal justice system; emerging to a new dawn. This of course, may prove to be pie in the sky science-fiction.

So let’s put money on when and what the first criminal justice legislation will be, shall we? The odds on favourite emerged as the finalisation and implementation of the Fines Bill, a Fianna Fáil-originated idea that is waiting to take-off. Another possibility is the continuation of momentum behind the enhanced use of Community Service Orders in sentencing. Limping along behind the pack we spoke about the much needed spent convictions legislation and its unfortunate likelihood of remaining on the back-burner for the foreseeable future.

Let’s take a look at some of the policies…

The prospect of voluntary drug testing in schools slipped almost unnoticed into the Fine Gael manifesto… we had no idea this was such an endemic problem in Irish schools(!) This risks stigmatising children and we question the nature of ‘voluntary’ and the prejudicial effects refusing such a test could have. It is hoped this is something of a white elephant that will quietly disappear.

Fine Gael also proposed the introduction of Social Investment Bonds, similar in nature to the UK’s currently piloting Social Impact Bonds, attempting to engage private enterprise to provide services on a payment-by-results basis will certainly be something worth watching.

The prospect of an expanded needle exchange programme and drugs rehabilitation provision was considered a welcome surprise in the Fine Gael manifesto. However, some DA members were concerned about Fine Gael’s intentions for Thornton Hall. The authors of this blog had greeted Fianna Fáil’s original plans for this Taj Mahal prison sceptically due to its remote location and proposed 2200 capacity. However, it has been six years since the original proposal, and while it has cost the tax payer around €43 million the site where it was to be built remains no more than an overgrown field. All the while, there have been thousands of prisoners who have been detained in appalling Dickensian conditions in Mountjoy. As a result the we felt decisive action must be taken by the incoming government. Disappointingly, when it came to the issue of Thornton Hall, Fine Gael were a little lacklustre on the issue and pretty noncommittal in their manifesto. It seemed that promises to revisit the issue of Thornton Hall and consider alternatives certainly didn’t assure us that plans for this huge prison were off the table.

Initially the Labour Party had been more zealous and fervent when it came to prisons; in an earlier and refreshingly explicit document on penal reform, Labour asserted its stance against Thornton Hall and the expansion of the prison estate, and presented a list of feasible alternatives to custody. There was hope that if Labour were to be Fine Gael’s partner in Government they might be able to sway the hand, and perhaps guide the new government’s actions concerning penal reform. Perhaps we were being naively optimistic, as in their actual manifesto Labour didn’t mention Thornton Hall, and seemed to be diverging somewhat from their earlier policy statement on penal policy, likely to be an election-inspired restatement; it should be interesting to see how far their input is shown in future Government action.

Sinn Féin pledged to return monies confiscated under the Criminal Assets Bureau to those communities most blighted by crime; this general consideration of shoring up the defences of such communities figured significantly in the Sinn Féin manifesto and received approval from the authors. The prospect of judicial training and a review of sentencing also seemed like a positive step.

For Fianna Fáil the issue did not arise, it was a non-runner, a no-show. Possibly due to the fact that we have a fairly accurate handle on their view of the issue, and the future as viewed through the Fianna Fáil lens. However, there is also the chance that, aware of an impending election defeat, they felt it unwise to expend energy on something they didn’t consider a priority. Indeed with their intention no doubt being to spend some time in opposition, re-group, re-brand and re-evaluate policy stance, they may also have wanted to say as little as possible on a number of issues. This will give them plenty of room to disagree with whatever the government does.

What do we think parties should have promised? How about a comprehensive and up-to-date resource on statistics and information pertaining to the criminal justice system. The benefit that this would entail would be exponential, it would indeed be a legacy issue, a revolution in research and transparency.

So in this time of marked depoliticisation of crime, are we free to seize the opportunity? Should we, in fact, rejoice that the parties did not make issues of prison and crime levels?

This month’s blog was written by Lynsey Black, Louise Brangan and Martin Quigley.

The views expressed in this blog are the authors' alone.

Public Criminology and Evidence-based Policy

Public Criminology and Evidence-Based Policy

Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (2010) Public Criminology? Criminological Politics in the Twenty-First Century (Key Ideas in Criminology), Routledge

Stevens, A. (2011) Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Evidence in Policy-making in the UK, Journal of Social Policy, 40(2), 237-255

Wacquant, L. (2011) From ‘Public Criminology’ to the Reflexive Sociology of Criminological Production and Consumption, British Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 438-448

A new book from Ian Loader and Richard Sparks aims to provide an incisive synopsis of public criminology today and to provide recommendations for the future. In Public Criminology? the authors pose the question - how can we introduce rational debate to the current political hot potato that is criminal justice policy? Is it possible to depoliticise crime and keep it on the agenda? Is it pessimistic to think that an ideology-free, cross-party interest in progressing thinking on crime is unlikely?

Crime is, of course, one of the issues that everyone tends to claim a certain authority on; ever been robbed, ever been burgled, ever heard a robust exchange of opinions on early release or sentencing? In light of the dominance of the ‘common sense’ mode of thinking on this topic, have the public dispatched with the actual experts as irrelevant?

What constitutes public criminology? Is it the frequent presence of academics on panel shows and news segments? The dearth of public criminologists is perhaps exemplified in a recent Guardian article which proposed a list of 300 public intellectuals in Britain; the list showed the prevalence of novelists, poets and historians– but there were few names on the list directly related to criminology, with only Stuart Hall (Policing the Crisis) appearing, although there were lawyers and legal academics such as Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve. If this book is a state of the nation on public criminology, then the evidence appears to suggest the concept is still largely theoretical.

Loader and Sparks mention possible ‘cooling devices’ which can take the heat out of the debate on crime. One such device is the intriguingly named Crime Science (to compensate for what many see as the tarnished criminology brand, defiled by an original sin of biological positivism). See, for an example, the appeal of crime science in the populist and sentimental naming of the Jill Dando Centre at UCL, an institute which might actually stand a chance of being known by general public.

Loader and Sparks offer a typology of public voices on criminology: the lonely prophet, the observer-turned-player, the policy advisor, the scientific expert and the social movement theorist/activist. A criticism of this classification system is found in Wacquant’s review article, where he writes that this focus on agents ignores the more fundamental issue of structure. The landscape of criminology is changing, he claims, and a review of the emerging institutional map is needed. Wacquant cites the rise of the think tank as an example, institutions which pitch themselves as the meeting place of research and policy while the underlying ideologies of these various think tanks is lost and their research accepted by many as value-neutral.

One question arising is, does this typology of public criminology voices fit Ireland? We do not seem to have the same variety of contributors to debates on crime. Is this heuristic typology actually of any use? Ireland, as ever the exceptional case, would perhaps struggle to field a list of candidates to match each category. This leads to further questioning of the applicability of the book itself. In his blog on the subject, Jonathan Simon claims that Public Criminology? cannot adequately reflect the situation in the US. Comparing the ‘heating up’ of the law and order debate in the UK to that in the US, Simon challenges the authors to realise that the US has stalked regrettably far ahead in terms of the politicisation of crime. So is this a book with relevance only to the UK? And is it even relevant in the UK at the moment? The economic imperative faced globally is having interesting effects on national law and order policy; the moral panics are fading for the present, and the doorstep issues have become the immediacy of employment and assistance for those struggling to cope. Can we really label this environment one which is continually ‘heating up’?

The Differential Association felt that Ireland simply wasn’t experiencing the same politicisation of criminal justice policy as that described in Loader and Sparks’ book, therefore it was felt that there was no need of ‘cooling devices’. However it was felt that engagement with policy formation would definitely be a welcome development, because while we do not appear to have a seething populist mass of punitive feeling on our hands, there are very few academics involved in policy discussion in Ireland.

We felt that this book was an interesting read, likely to provoke debate in criminological circles, yet it remains too slight to tackle its subject-matter. There are burning questions and matters of substance lacking from the text, which it is hoped the authors come back to at a later stage. One of the critical issues is whether the politicisation of crime is really increasing – have developments since this book was written prompted a need for more thinking, and more nuance?

Is it unreasonable or shallow to suggest that criminology departments should engage in better PR and make strenuous efforts to develop contacts in the media if they are serious about becoming public spokespeople? How far should such an academic involvement with communications and PR extend, and would academics be willing to engage with such a system? We should keep in mind that the nature of media reporting often jars with the academic system. The media pundit and expert often require snappy sentiments, large degrees of certitude, along with being expected to provide a controversial interpretation of the debate at hand. Is it possible that criminologists avoid news outlets out of a fear that it could undermine the legitimacy of their work; after years of rigorous research perhaps many criminologists wish to protect their findings from being reduced to a polemic sound-bite?

The role of the media in this is crucial. It was felt that the coverage of criminological seminars and conferences in Ireland was admirable and an improvement on that of the UK.

How are criminologists to engage with policy, and consequently, with the public? Alex Stevens’ article on evidence-based policy offers an ethnographic view of the inner workings of a policy department, and makes compelling reading on a process rarely glimpsed. He writes that many policy-makers expressed the view that frequently the evidence required was just not available to them, and that academics consistently failed to address the questions posed by policy-makers, and subsequently failed to provide practical recommendations – is there an argument for more closely aligning research needs with research output? Obviously there are qualifications here because there should be autonomy in research, but consider the idea of a central database, accessible to academics and university departments, of research currently required by policy units.

How is policy made? In Stevens’ article, he exposed a world reliant on Google, which considered HBO’s The Wire as evidence, stacked with civil servants eager to provide cursory evidence as a means of elevating their status, rather than as a necessary buttress for effective policy. The warning came to civil servants that they should avoid specialisation at all costs, to ensure that they remained of general use rather than offering niche expertise.

In Ireland we appear to favour a pragmatic policy creation approach, identifying what needs doing and moving to do it, without any engagement in larger philosophical discussions. It is difficult to find many ideological pushes in justice legislation in recent years in Ireland (save possibly Michael McDowell’s initiatives while in office). There appears to be a vein of anti-intellectualism running through policy-making and politics in Ireland, or as Martin succinctly put it, we experience a great deal of ‘criminapathy’ in this country.

And now we leave you with yet more questions. Is there an exact definition of a public criminologist? And what is the precise definition of a criminologist, when the public currently attach the label to true crime writers and forensic investigators? In the UK, David Wilson has created a role for himself as a feted ‘celebrity criminologist’, writing and speaking on many of the more sensational crime events, engaging the public attention for the cases which they readily engage with. This is less true of bread-and-butter issues such as penal reform and sentencing, which find it difficult to attract interest once storms of fury evaporate. What, for that matter, is academia for? Does it exist to inform and engage with the public, or to underpin policy, or does it exist as an endeavour in itself?

This blog was written by Lynsey Black and Louise Brangan.

The views expressed in this blog are the authors' alone.

CPT and PFG

While we had envisaged discussing the most recent Committee for the Prevention of Torture report and the Programme for Government in isolation, it appeared that there was considerable overlap, especially given the recent news of a review of Thornton Hall, and the release of the figure of €45 million spent so far on the purchase of the site and preparatory works (see Fergus Finlay's recent Irish Examiner article on the issue).

Interestingly, the Government response to the CPT report had clearly been prepared by the Irish Prison Service. The familiar refrain of ‘the prison service must accept all persons sent to it’ was the tell-tale line, a clear and frequent IPS argument. The response to the CPT should have come from Government, which would then necessitate accountability for the overall numbers entering the prison system. This chance was missed, and it appeared that the IPS instead took the opportunity to defend itself.

The Differential Association posed itself the question, what would we do? It may be pleasant to sit back and criticise previous Government policy, but the fact remains that we oppose the building of Thornton Hall, yet deplore the conditions many prisoners must live in. Apart from the initial projections on size (which seem to be a distant memory and soon to be consigned to historical folly), we objected to the location of Thornton Hall, as somewhere out of the way, and requiring considerable effort to reach. However, beyond its size and location, there was no opposition in principle to the building of a new prison with better facilities and conditions. Can we renovate older prisons wing by wing, can we re-house prisoners while such works are underway?

Beyond this though, we were cognisant of the fact that if our answer to the problem was building, we were clearly taking too literal and short-sighted a look at the question. The creation of new spaces will inevitably be followed by prompt filling of these spaces - if they expand, they will grow. What is needed is a more considered reform of the justice system, to halt the numbers reaching the gates of the prison in the first place. Reforms like the current Bill dealing with Community Service Orders, and the implementation of the Fines Act 2010, are urgently needed.

Further, within the Programme for Government there is mention of a review of mandatory sentencing as an overall review of drugs policy. It is unsure if one possible outcome of such a review is the abandonment of mandatory sentencing. (For a discussion of mandatory and presumptive sentences please see the IPRT Position Paper).

Also stated in the PfG, is the reform of prison Visiting Committees, which can only be seen as a welcome step. At the present time, annual reports often appear perfunctory and lacking in insight or consideration, further, the appointment of persons without relevant experience would seem to make little sense. However, the organisations themselves have a valid role to play in monitoring individual institutions in a fashion that the Inspector of Prisons cannot be expected to fulfil.

The question of those 16- and 17-year-olds detained in St. Patrick’s Institution was naturally felt to be a matter of urgency. The previous Government had committed to the building of a new National Children Detention Centre at Lusk and declared that money had been ring-fenced, the first stage of the project (the removal of boys from St. Patrick’s) was due to come online in mid-2013. The new Government pledges to end the practice of imprisonment of boys under the age of 18, but it is unclear whether this translates to reaffirming the commitment to the Lusk site. Similarly, the use of screened visits in St. Patrick’s and the requirement of a uniform were questioned. Why was it deemed necessary to have screened visits only in St. Patrick’s? Official rationale underpinning the uniform rule stated that a uniform would prevent boys being bullied or assaulted (for trainers or because they didn’t fit) were undermined by the fact that the boys wear their own trainers along with the uniform.

Cork, our forgotten prison, is frequently held up as one of the worst examples in the country, yet receives very little of the attention that Mountjoy receives. The situation in Cork in terms of psychiatric help is worrying, the CPT reports that without the Central Mental Hospital in-reach team, there are limited options for offenders with mental health issues. However, it was interesting to learn that inter-prisoner violence was much lower in Cork Prison, the reason cited being the incentive to remain there, rather than face transportation elsewhere if reprimanded for violent conduct. The concept of local prisons becomes more appealing considering this finding of the CPT.

One of the frequent calls of The Differential Association is for the provision of information, and for procedures to be put in place to generate significant amounts of data, which can be of enormous use in strategy, planning and research. It was the general contention that by compiling comprehensive records on prisoners' admittance to prison we could create a huge dataset which would be beneficial to researchers, policy-makers and the Government. The current state of the Prisoner Medical Records System, a computerised records system, is generally quite poor, with only cursory remarks being recorded. As this is the case, the importance of paper records remains, creating logistical headaches when records for a prisoner are stored in another institution. However, one question raised, regarding equivalence of care, is the separation of the PMRS from the IPS computer network, to ensure confidentiality and privacy for prisoners – issues which the CPT are critical of in terms of consultations with doctors. However, the CPT were quick to commend the expansion of nurse-led initiatives and creation of Nurse Officers, which is a very welcome development.

The complaints mechanism came under significant fire in the CPT report. It is recorded that only small numbers of complaints were made, and that numbers of these were withdrawn, it was further noted that prisoners felt there might be negative consequences awaiting them if they did complain. It is essential that prisoners have a clear and transparent complaints mechanism which they understand and trust. It is also worth noting, again, that those children imprisoned in St. Patrick's Institution are still not included in the mandate of the Ombudsman for Children Office.

This blog was written by Lynsey Black.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.