Crime Behind the Glass by Laura Huey

Huey, Laura (2011) Crime behind the glass:Exploring the sublime in crime at the Vienna Kriminalmuseum, Theoretical Criminology, 15(4)

The lure of the macabre has significant purchase in contemporary culture; in her recent article on the subject of the appeal of tales of gruesome crimes, Laura Huey draws from wider research to present an analysis of our fascination with the gritty underbelly of humanity.

As a group with a definite and previously expressed interest cultural criminology The Differential Association this week eagerly fell on Huey’s article as an attempt to get to grips with the enduring attraction with the darker elements of humanity.

Taking the specific case study of the Kriminalmuseum in Vienna, Huey attempts to ask why consumers make a choice to patronise sites and activities which revolve around violent crimes, citing examples such as the Jack the Ripper walking tour in London and Madame Tussauds’ Chamber of Horrors. An interesting question asked is how museum curators select exhibits, and gauge whether sufficient interest exists to launch new works and shows. However, the question of the exchange relationship between museums and museum visitors is not explored in any real depth, and the DA felt that it would have been illuminating to know the professed reasons for visiting such attractions, and survey use for the purpose of the article could have enhanced and added to a discussion which felt like it was missing a key component.  Huey herself expresses a willingness to know more about the ‘intended audience’ of the Kriminalmuseum, and it was disappointing not to hear directly from this intended audience. In a following sentence Huey herself answers this question from assumption rather than empirical investigation; the visitors are there to see the exhibits in precisely that context framed by the curator – as an educational experience of the dark side of humanity. Assuming the intentions for creating an exhibit to be the rationale for attending an exhibit ignores the conscious choice of actual patrons.

The article covers ground quoting many writers who firmly claim the interest in the macabre as a contemporary phenomenon, many seeing it emerge from the post-modern age. This struck us as remarkably myopic, considering that the history of societal engagement with the horrific as entertainment extends for centuries into our past. The considerable crowds which attended public executions, the Penny Dreadful, and the tripping of the well-heeled through the corridors of historic lunatic asylums stand as startling markers of a trait that cannot be said to have emerged in our more recent past. Indeed, the dark elements of folk tales and pre-sanitised fairy stories speak to a desire to identify and express our fears of the unknown in a safe environment.

Huey later states that, ‘we cannot confidently say that fascination with crime, or the exploitation of this fascination, are the result of modern anxieties’. This admission appears to only partly reject the assertions that the phenomenon is recent, despite many of Huey’s own examples coming from much earlier times. This reticence to express her views is noticeable in the article. Huey seems reluctant to make firm statements and accept ownership of any point of view. As this article would appear to be the offshoot of a much larger project, this is somewhat disappointing, and the group felt that conclusions drawn from this work would have been welcomed.

The concentration on philosophical concepts, while appropriate when discussing the macabre as the sublime, rendered this article somewhat more philosophy than criminology. However we were intrigued by the philosophical definition of ‘sublime’ and felt her use of the concept added much to our understanding of the appeal of crime stories and representations – the pleasure of viewing something horrific while knowing we are safe from it.

Huey presents an interesting literature review but seems unsure, at the close, of what she has accomplished, and whether she feels she has answered her questions. The central question is ‘why crime holds an enduring appeal for so many spectators?’

Huey posits the concept of ‘riskless risk’, of crime behind the glass. However, in the ensuing paragraph Huey’s question again shifts to return the focus back to the museum curators and their selection of pieces, and why museums present such exhibitions. Huey seems unsure of her question, which perhaps explains the unfocused nature of her answers.

The article also lingers more than it need on a descriptive walk-through account of the Kriminalmuseum which, while interesting, is not directly relevant to the substance of the article. The introduction of visual elements as well is perhaps an irrelevance, and one of the images in particularly ironic fashion seems to ‘do’ that which it explores, namely the exploitation of interest in violence.

Of course, it was inevitable that the article prompted the DA to ask ourselves why we gathered every month to discuss thoughts on crimes and punishment! When confronted with the deeper question of what exactly consumers of the macabre achieve in the exchange the answer lay very much in the concept of the ‘riskless risk’ that Huey elucidates. The prospect of experiencing horrors, in a safe environment, that we reserve for our private nightmares. The sedentary nature and relative safety of our lifestyles in Western society may demand that we take other steps to introduce adrenaline, take the prevalence of extreme sports for example! The ‘civilisation’ of Western society, towards an avowed disgust of physical violence, either privately or State-sanctioned, renders much of our past history as seemingly barbaric. Yet do we feel we have lost the thrill of true danger?


This month's blog was written by Lynsey Black.


The views expressed are the author's alone.

An Irish Criminology? at the 8th North South Criminology Conference

The Differential Association will be presenting a workshop at the forthcoming North South Criminology Conference, held this year at University College Dublin, on 28th and 29th of June. We will be exploring the question of Irish criminology as laid out in our abstract below.

The Differential Association presents: An Irish Criminology?

For how much longer can we classify criminology as the ‘absentee’ discipline of Ireland, and what exactly needs to happen before we can officially announce its presence?  The state of criminology within Ireland has been much lamented by academics, its slow development and patchwork nature have been unfavourably compared to the position of the discipline internationally, notably in those countries where it is established to a high degree.  Are these comparisons justified?  Does proximity and shared history with the United Kingdom, for example, give Irish practitioners and academics unrealistic expectations of exactly how advanced our consolidation of the field should be?  Are we downplaying the significant gains made in Ireland and are we, in fact, in the process of developing something intrinsically Irish?  The Differential Association, a network of academics and practitioners, have spent the last year delving into criminological writings, discussing emerging theories and classic texts, always with an eye towards gaining a greater understanding of our own national criminological identity.  Join us for a discussion which will touch on the question of whether we are a nation characterised by apathy, would a more assertive political will to change have led the charge on criminology research or should our academic research culture be lighting the way forward.  In response to recent questions on the nature of public criminology, we will be asking how academics can influence and contribute to evidence-led policy in a culture that appears resistant.

The workshop is provisionally scheduled for 10.30-12.00 on 29th June. Due to the informal and dynamic nature of the workshop we will be restricting numbers to facilitate better discussion! We hope to see you there!

Upcoming Events: Book Club Double Bill

While we normally organise our monthly get-togethers one at a time, this month we ambitiously decided to set the date for our May and June book clubs.

First up is Crime behind the glass: Exploring thesublime in crime at the Vienna Kriminalmuseum. 

Date: 24th of May

Place: Mulliagns on Poolbeg Street

Time: 6pm

Then a fortnight later we will be meeting to cast our critical eye over Foucault's seminal text, Discipline and Punish.

Date: 7th of June

Place: Mulliagns on Poolbeg Street

Time: 6pm

All are welcome to join in what is sure to be not one, but two lively criminology conversations!

A Dire Forecast: A theoretical model of the impact of climate change on crime

Agnew, Robert (2011) A Dire Forecast: A theoretical model of the impact of climate change on crime, in Theoretical Criminology, Vol 16 (1): 21-42

In the mood for something outside our academic comfort zones this month, the DA gathered to discuss the implications and ideas put forward in Robert Agnew’s recent article in Theoretical Criminology: Dire Forecast. Agnew sets himself a bold task, pointedly stating his belief that climate change will become one the most significant driving forces behind increases in crime over the coming century. And who better to critically appraise the detrimental impact of the weather than the Irish, a nation of people who feel particularly maligned by our inclement climate!

Of course we are all familiar with images of weather-related disasters, as Agnew rightly points out, in the last 10 years many countries have been subject to catastrophic heat-waves, droughts, hurricanes and floods. Playing with the idea of the long-term implications of an increasingly volatile climate has provided fodder for many a Hollywood blockbuster – and leaving aside the ‘is it or isn’t it’ argument going on in America – the popularity of the topic suggests that climate change is very much at the front of our conscience.

The breadth of his argument sees Agnew cross disciplinary thresholds; bringing together disparate areas of literature, such as sociology, geography, social psychology and ecology, which he frames using strain theory, giving it a familiar criminological feel.

Agnew lays out the whole gamut of climate change and weather-related disasters: rising temperatures; changing patterns of precipitation; increased sea levels; hurricanes; floods; droughts. The ripple effect from these changes makes for sombre reading; water shortages will see crop production decline, resulting in food-shortages. And that is only the beginning; then there is the impact on health from malnutrition, cardio-respiratory diseases from increased air pollution, the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria, as well as the loss of livelihood, particularly in farming and fishing;  and that is to say nothing of the deeply felt trauma of weather-related catastrophes. All of which will be occurring at a time of increasing population, which will induce mass migration and see mega-cities mushroom.

He links this staggering list of climate-related changes to crime by describing them as a source of strain. These strains, or stressors, will increase poverty, erode social cohesion, weaken social support, and heightened social conflict. This paves the way for increased criminality as people’s values become less stringent and they start to see crime as a legitimate way to act out against the source of their strain. The forced migration will result in cramped and sub-par living conditions and work and resources will become increasingly scarce, all of which will provide fertile soil for increased criminality.  And it is not just the change in social structure that results in climate-related strains; Agnew cites research linking increased temperature to aggressive behaviour and heightened irritability. He also tries to link low intelligence to climate-related crime, albeit briefly, by linking it to malnutrition in pregnant women.

So did Agnew manage to convince us that the impact of climate change will do as much to crime rates as it will to sea levels? While we all admitted approaching the article with sceptical eyes, our thoughts on his paper were not as straight forward as we initially expected. Certainly, a cursory exploration reveals that Agnew is not alone in his view that climate change presents the greatest security threat of the 21st century.

The bad news is that we felt overall the article had a distractingly dystopian tone, with the entire plant appearing to edge closer to a Hobbesian state of nature, in which society comes undone due to dramatic climate change, and life becomes a violent, brutish and poverty stricken cycle. This dire state of affairs seemed to override a very important factor in this argument: even if climate change does proceed at catastrophic levels, the detrimental impacts will occur discreetly rather than uniformly. As such, how different societies and governments respond to the challenges of climate change will be highly diverse. The issue is a knottier one then Agnew presents here; one that is as much about government resources and developed democracies as it is about climate change. Evidence of this massively uneven impact can be seen around us with the current international recession; with the influence of austerity playing out very differently across national borders. And unlike the recession, climate change will generally occur at a far more incremental pace, giving states and societies longer to make sense of these changes. And what about the social cohesion that develops after unexpected disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes; where people pull together in a sense of shared survival and solidarity? Even in places where the state is weakened, people’s shared social values are not instantly dismantled. Despite the planet-wide crisis, climate change will be experienced differently by each nation state and society; a point which should be taken more seriously if climate related criminology is to avoid the ‘dangers of dystopias’, to borrow a phrase from Lucia Zedner.

Some people felt that the arguments around urbanisation could have been teased out more, it being a far more developed area of research; and certainly would have provided a firmer scaffolding on which to hang his argument. However, this is probably a result of Agnew’s bold ambition to sketch a broad overview of this nascent research topic in the limited space provided. As he puts it, his aim in this article is to scan the environmental horizon. Other issues which pose intriguing 21st century problems were mentioned briefly, for example that of corporate crime perpetrated in the avoidance of climate change-related legislation, an area which presents a significant area in itself.

The speculative framework he does present is incredibly rudimentary. However, he concedes this point throughout the article; emphasising that his model is better viewed as a template for further work rather than an already developed thesis.

However, no matter what your intuitive stance on this topic, it would be almost impossible to outright reject it. And despite our criticisms, at the heart of this article there is something very interesting that is worth engaging with. It is well known that people are responsive to the weather, Seasonal Affective Disorder and vitamin D deficiencies being among more popular weather-related ailments. Between the assembled DA members we had an arm length list of anecdotal evidence of weather related changes in behaviour; though, all of these came loaded with provisos and caveats. However, what really piqued our interest was one DA member’s recent research which exposed a clear link between certain offences and the time of year. Obviously this raises more questions than it answers, but it is hard to observe such a persistent annual pattern and not wonder about the environmental factors at play. We felt that much more quantitative and qualitative research of this type will need to be completed before Agnew’s argument can really get off the ground.

So, the question remains: is there a need to develop a distinctly ‘climate criminology’? This article is bursting with possibilities, ideas and theories, no doubt an indication of Agnew’s own passion for this topic, perhaps if he wants to move this area forward a more singular focus should be adopted; allowing the credibility of the various facets of his argument to be excavated. What this article presents is a whistle-stop introduction to a potential new-line of inquiry, and it certainly ignited debate among the assembled DA members, we will eagerly watch to see how Agnew seeks to evolve this topic and the consequences it may have for criminology more broadly. 

To listen to Robert Agnew discuss his article click here.

This month's blog was written by Louise Brangan.

The views expressed in this blog are the author's alone.

Dire Forecast by Robert Agnew

The next meeting of the Differential Association will take place:

When: Thursday 19th April at 6pm

Venue: The back room of Mulligan's on Poolbeg Street, Dublin 2

We'll be reading Robert Agnew's recent article on climate change and whether this will have significant effects on crime, Dire Firecast: A Theoretical Model of the Impact of Climate Change on Crime.

We look forward to seeing you there to discuss this innovative article!

Upcoming - Bringing the Penal State Back In

The next meeting of The Differential Association will take place:

Date: Thursday the 22nd of March
Venue: Mulligans Pub on Poolbeg Street, in the back room
Time: 6pm

We'll be looking at an on-line lecture, Bringing the Penal State Back In, where Loic Wacquant and Nicola Lacey argue their distinct view points regarding how we understand the use of punishment.

All are welcome, whether you work in the area, or are just interested to find out more!

The Presumption of Innocence and Irish Criminal Law - Whittling the Golden Thread

Hamilton, C (2007) The Presumption of Innocence and Irish Criminal Law –Whittling the Golden Thread, Dublin: Irish Academic Press.

This week was the Differential Association's 1st birthday, and to mark the occasion we decided to read The Presumption of Innocence and Irish Criminal Law - Whittling of the Golden Thread, and the author Claire Hamilton very kindly agreed to join us for some birthday cupcakes and a lively debate!

When reading any book or article the members of the DA always try and analysis the findings in the Irish context, so it was a welcome change that we had a book that chronicled subjects that pertained to particular issues in the Irish criminal justice system.

The presumption of innocence is a core tenet of our criminal justice system as it underpins fundamental rights and procedures. As Hamilton notes, ‘in its narrowest sense, the presumption can be viewed as merely giving expression to the most prosaic evidential rules that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt’. Therefore, the presumption should not be viewed as a rhetorical right, but be enshrined at the centre of our justice system.

However, recent criminal justice legislation – the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, the anti-crime package of 1996/7 and the Criminal Justice Act 2006 – have all done a great deal to not only undermine, but erode the presumption in Irish law.

We spent most of our time discussing the provisions in the 1996/7 crime package, which we all agreed have made a significant impact on the presumption of innocence and the rights that are underpinned by it. The impetus for this raft of legislation was the murders of Garda Jerry McCabe and prominent crime journalist, Veronica Guerin. Ireland has traditionally been noted as a country which isn’t overtly perturbed by crime, yet these murders shook the nation. However, an additional crucial factor is one of timing. These murders happened just prior to a general election, and this confluence of events seemed to turn the area of criminal justice into a political battleground. While the core of the package was made up of six acts, here Hamilton examined the Bail Act 1997, the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996.

Firstly, the Proceeds of Crime Bill eroded the presumption as it denied people access to procedural rights. The basis of this Act is that it creates a means to forfeit material and financial gains made through criminal activity. However, the Act is a civil one, consequently, through its configuration it deprives people’s right to due process protections which are afforded in criminal law. In addition, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another right connected with the presumption, the right to silence, was further downgraded in the Drug Trafficking Bill, which quite shockingly allows the court to draw inferences from the defendant’s failure to mention certain facts, facts which they later rely on as part of their offence.

However, the Bail Act has been one of the most significant and detrimental acts brought in during this wave of legislative fervour. This act allows for preventative detention, which means that a defendant can be placed in custody pending trial; this is to prevent the accused from committing further offences. This completely contradicts that presumption, the defendant has not been convicted of a crime, yet they are denied their right to liberty. The seriousness of this point should not be underestimated; the deprivation of liberty is the harshest sanction available to the state, yet people are imprisoned based on a suspicion that they may have an intention to commit a crime, which certainly does not constitute a crime. As Hamilton pointed out, this does not provide an adequate base on which to detain someone. We worried that this sort of legal assessment transposes the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt.

This act also has some very serious practical ramifications for our prison system. Over the last 10 years we have seen a worrying increase in our prisoner population, and it wouldn’t be too much of a leap to make some connection between this and an increase in remand prisoners. A cursory glance at Scotland's prison population should sound a serious alarm about the slippery slope of preventative detention. Scotland is a country with a similar size population to Ireland, but their prison population swelled to over 8,000 recently, which has been linked to a troubling reliance on preventative detention. In fact, right now there are more people detained in the Scottish prison system on remand than there are under sentence. This results in prisons becoming overcrowded by short term prisoners, which is hugely detrimental to the creation of meaningful penal regimes. And this is to say nothing of the economic and social cost of over-crowded prisons.

While there are those who would argue that this is a reasonable price to pay for the protection of the public, research from both Ireland and Scotland shows that only 50% of remand prisoners end up receiving a custodial sentence. Surely this evidence shines a light on the dubious foundation and unjust character of the Bail Act?

2006 saw further erosions to the presumption with the introduction of a new Criminal Justice Act. This was an extensive Bill; however, one of the most worrisome features was the provision for behaviour orders, a close to relation to its English counterpart, the ASBO. Like the Proceeds of Crime Bill, these behaviour orders were tied into civil, rather than criminal law; so the standard of proof here rests on the balance of probabilities. This has serious ramifications on the fundamental values of the justice system. In these circumstances a person is accused of what could be considered criminal activity, yet the state never has to bear the burden of proof as hearsay evidence from a Garda is considered enough to prove the alleged behaviour. Moreover, if the order is breached there is the potential to receive a custodial sentence, but because it is a civil proceeding they are not granted the due process rights inherent in criminal law. These perturbing developments have created what Hamilton refers to as a shadow legal system.

When you piece these extensive changes together: diminished right to silence; reduced procedural props; civil orders with the potential to be imprisoned without any due process rights; hearsay evidence, the picture becomes the stuff of dystopian fiction, it certainly would not be out of place in the work of Orwell or Kafka.

The question we all asked was how to row back on such harsh legislation, and re-establish the presumption of innocence at the centre of our justice system? Some people highlighted findings that showed that if the public were given more information they are actually more lenient than the judges. Or research which finds that, contrary to intuition, increased civic engagement and democratisation of the policy-making process could help develop a fairer justice system.

A significant barrier to any change is that in Ireland these laws are founded on the believe that the criminal justice system had tipped too far in favour of the defendant, and that in fact, by undermining the presumption of innocence we are actually strengthening our justice system. Michael McDowell, who was quite unrelenting in achieving his vision of law reform, succinctly stated when it came to the criminal justice system, ‘the balance has shifted too far in favour of the accused’. The rights of the accused have been placed in direct opposition to the rights of society, and it appears that the presumption of innocence has borne the brunt of this antagonistic discordance. Essentially, the legislative changes that are detailed in the book appear to be premised on the notion of the criminal 'other'; this seems to be a fundamental driving force behind the devaluation of the presumption. As such, there is no need to be concerned about diminishing due process rights and procedural props, as that is the law for them, it won’t affect us, the law abiding public. As a result, trying to muster up the political appetite for these legislative row backs will prove to be a sizeable challenge as long as we understand our criminal justice system in such clear-cut dichotomous terms.

However, we also wondered if part of the problem was a lack of political comprehension about the importance of fundamental principles such as the presumption of innocence. Of course it would be easy to decree that such harsh and punitive outcomes are solely the result of harsh and punitive intentions; however many DA members believed that this didn’t provide a full explanation of how the presumption of innocence has been incrementally reduced to a paper tiger. The 1996/7 crime package certainly provides plenty of material for debate, given that it contained provisions that were among the most destructive to the presumption. However, this moral panic emerged shortly before a general election, it was suggested that given the timing, opportunistic opposition politicians made a land grab. Rather than being motivated by a punitive ideology, politicians viewed criminal justice as a valuable area of public interest, and potential votes. Perhaps if the murders that incited the media frenzy had happened at a time more removed from a general election a more considered and measured response could have been employed. If this had been the case, the terrain of Irish criminal justice could look very different; with the presumption of innocence remaining a strong pillar of our justice system. An important lesson to be taken from this is that short-term moral crusades can yield long-term damages to our civil liberties.

Another important thread that emerged from our conversation (one that appears to be becoming an emergent trend in DA discussions) was about how important it is to root studies of these types of dramatic policy change in their local contexts; whether they be cultural, political or historical. While similar changes to the presumption of innocence may be simultaneously occurring in other western jurisdictions, the character and the nature of these changes were distinctively Irish; they were driven by events and changes in public mood and temper that were uniquely Irish, and shaped by Irish political actors. There was a broad consensus that despite a trend towards convergence in criminological explanations of penal and legislative transformation, that policy-making remained rooted in the local factors; and that to understand changes in criminal justice procedures we must foreground our research in the national context.

Surely this is one of the most important contributions of Claire Hamilton’s book, it is an informative and insightful contribution to the burgeoning area of criminology and criminal justice studies in Ireland. Moreover, it is evident that the erosion of the presumption of innocence has had some very serious consequences, and it should not disappear without at least an attempt at an informed debate. We hope that by shining a much needed investigative light on this issue, that Whittling the Golden Thread may contribute to a wider discourse about the fundamental values of the Irish criminal justice system.

This month's blog was written by Louise Brangan.

The views expressed in this blog are the author's alone.