The Making of Criminal Justice Policy

Sue Hobbs, Christopher Hamerton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415676953
• eBook ISBN: 9781317755470
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This new textbook will provide students of criminology with a better understanding of criminal justice policy and, in doing so, offers a framework for analysing the social, economic and political processes that shape its creation. The book adopts a policy-oriented approach to criminal justice, connecting the study of criminology to the wider study of British government, public administration and politics.

Throughout the book the focus is on key debates and competing perspectives on how policy decisions are made. Recognising that contemporary criminal justice policymakers operate in a highly politicised, public arena under the gaze of an ever-increasing variety of groups, organisations and individuals who have a stake in a particular policy issue, the book explores how and why these people seek to influence policymaking. It also recognises that criminal policy differs from other areas of public policy, as policy decisions affect the liberty and freedoms of citizens. Throughout, key ideas and debates are linked to wider sociology, criminology and social policy theory.

Key features include:

• a foreword by Tim Newburn, leading criminologist and author of Criminology (2nd Edition, 2013),
• a critical and informed analysis of the concepts, ideas and institutional practices that shape criminal justice policy making,
• an exploration of the relationship between criminal justice and wider social policy,
• a critical analysis of the debate about how and why behaviour becomes defined as requiring a criminal justice solution,
• a range of case studies, tasks, seminar questions and suggested further readings to keep the student engaged.

This text is perfect for students taking modules in criminology; criminal justice; and social and public policy, as well as those taking courses on criminal and administrative law.

1
Introduction

Outrage, frustration, curiosity and surprise have led many people into the study of crime and justice. It might be a newspaper article describing a punishment that seems unduly lenient, or a statement about the mental health of prisoners, or a rise in the number of children in detention. Something, though, triggers a concern that will not go away. Consternation at the apparent lack of ‘common sense’ in justice is as good a reason as any to stimulate inquiry.

Once the process of asking questions begins, critical analysis of the system follows, and this inevitably leads to views about what is wrong and how to change the system, to improve it or at the very least refine the way it does what it does. It might even lead to a conclusion that something is as good as it can be. This book adopts a policy-oriented approach to criminal justice that connects the study of criminology to the wider study of British government, public administration and politics. Throughout, we focus on key debates and competing perspectives on how policy decisions are made. With this in mind, we will be asking you to consider the groups, organisations and individuals who have a stake in a particular policy issue, and will explore how different stakeholders in criminal justice and punishment mobilise power to influence policy. Inevitably, we will be encouraging you to think about how some groups emerge as ‘winners’ and others as ‘losers’ in relation to a specific policy area.

If the rationale for trying to understand a system is to make the system better, then studying criminal justice policy-making is a direct way in which we can explore how the ideas and knowledge of criminologists help us to make sense of why the system operates in the way that it does. Policy-making that drives change in legislation, procedures, definitions and organisational culture offers scope for reducing the harms of crime and enhancing the efficacy or fairness of punishment. While criminologists offer us a range of views on where our attention should be focused, that urge to understand should ultimately lead us to want to do something – to correct an injustice, to better manage resources, to expose discrimination. With this in mind, the book describes the process by which criminal justice policy is adopted or created, and explores the frequently messy and contradictory realities of the process.

Who has a stake in criminal justice policy-making?

The view adopted in this book is that the criminal justice policy-making process is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the interplay of numerous individuals and interest groups, alternately competing and collaborating to influence policy-makers to act in a particular way. The authors argue throughout that while the decision to act (or not) is essentially a political one (with the balance of power always retained by the government), modern policy-makers share the political sphere with a proliferation of different interest and pressure groups that have a stake in criminal justice policy, and want to shape the policy process in favour of their vision and preferred outcomes. Although his depiction of politicians may be controversial, Naylor’s (2004) description of criminal justice policy as the outcome of the process by which stakeholders (he highlights bureaucrats and police officials) with ‘the benefits of co-operative elements of the media, mass market a problem, provide a diagnosis, then connive a prescription that naive or opportunistic politicians co-operate to pass into law’ (p. xvi), provides a useful starting point for an analysis that recognises the centrality of interest group politics in criminal justice policy-making.

Policy-making, as Downes and Morgan (2002) remind us, is no longer the preserve of a small elite government ‘inner circle’ of civil servants and government officials. Rather, contemporary criminal justice policy-makers operate in a highly politicised, public arena under the gaze of an ever-increasing variety of actors with different levels of knowledge, power and influence, all of whom have a stake in the process and its outcomes. Some of these actors (such as commercial organisations and trade unions) are primarily concerned with promoting their own material welfare, whereas others (such as penal reformers) are cause-oriented. The differing levels of power and influence that these individuals and groups wield, and the closeness (or otherwise) of their relationship to the government, have led some to talk about ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’.

The insider/outsider pressure group thesis

The insider/outsider thesis differentiates between groups that have considerable political influence and maintain close consultative relationships with the senior echelons of government and senior civil servants, and those which operate at the margins of the body politic. While insider groups have the ‘ear of the government’, are trusted by the departments and ‘play by’ the formal rules of policy-making, outsider groups, some of whom are opposed to the political system, exert pressure by less formal means. They seek to mobilise public opinion to their cause by activities such as rallies, protests and demonstrations. They rely heavily on the media coverage that activities such as these attract. On occasions, they resort to direct action to draw public attention to their cause. A recent example of direct action was the environmental group Greenpeace’s attempts to occupy a Russian oil platform in protest against drilling in the Arctic, which resulted in 30 arrests on charges of piracy. The event attracted international press coverage (Vidal, 2013).

When identifying the distinguishing characteristics of insider groups, Page makes the following observations:

First, we would expect insider groups to have frequent contacts with at least one ministry. Their frequent contacts would allow them to learn what proposals are likely to be decided on in the near future, give informal views on their merits and make sure that they are on the list for formal consultations. Second, we would expect insider groups to be consulted on virtually everything in their field; as insiders they should never be the last to know what is on the department’s mind on matters that affect them and, indeed, they would have already had a chance to influence something before it is ever made public. Third, we would expect insider groups to be able to influence policy. To be ‘on the list’ for consultation by the department is of little importance if what the group has to say in the consultation process is routinely ignored… Although we would not expect groups to be able to influence decisions all the time, we might expect them to have a chance of influencing policy at least occasionally.

(Page, 1999: 208)

Notwithstanding the argument that there is effectively a policy-making elite with stakeholders occupying different positions in the hierarchy of influence, all stakeholders, in principle, have at their disposal a range of both formal and informal means of influencing the policy-making process. Furthermore, while it is clearly the case that differential access to the government means that some groups for strategic or ideological reasons may favour the informal rather than the formal, the polarisation of groups into distinct groups as suggested by the insider/outsider thesis creates a false dichotomy of binary opposites. In reality, few groups conform to the ideal types and their characteristics place them on a continuum between the two poles (Page, 1999).

The formal processes available to policy-making stakeholders include: making policy submissions in response to public consultations, and giving evidence (by invitation) at select committees and statutory inquiries (such as Lord Scarman’s inquiry after the Brixton disturbances in 1981). The informal processes include: lobbying (which has become increasingly prolific with the rise of the commercial lobbying firm), media campaigning, participating in demonstrations and petitioning.

Typology of stakeholders

The typology shown in the following box is indicative of the volume and range of criminal justice policy stakeholders.

Political parties: since the mid-1970s law and order has formed part of all political party manifestos, has featured in party conferences and has become an increasingly important electoral issue. Although political parties shape their policy agenda to fit with their ideological preferences and their electoral ambitions, some argue that a new ‘punitive consensus’ has been created, with parties trying to out-tough each other on law and order.

Public officials: such as the Home Office and Ministry of Justice civil servants and special policy advisors. They operate within the formal spheres of policy-making, turning the political visions of ministers into policy. They take evidence from policy entrepreneurs and ‘experts’ at select committees and through public consultations. They present policy proposals in official papers, and draft legislation. They issue policy directives to criminal justice professionals.

Criminal justice professionals and their representative organisations: such as judges, police, probation officers, prison officers, youth offender workers and crime and disorder enforcement officers. As practitioners they implement policy, and as trade unionists they lobby the government through their professional organisations (e.g. the National Association of Probation Officers). They provide formal submissions to public consultations, public inquiries and the Home Affairs Select Committee. As trade unionists, they can withdraw their labour and participate in demonstrations to promote their sectional interests, for example the probation officers’ decision to ‘walk out’ in response to the outsourcing to the private and/or voluntary sector of all but high-risk cases.

Penal reform groups: such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders, Penal Reform Trust, Inquest and Women in Prison are cause-oriented groups. They tend to adopt a critical approach to government law and order policy. Many of these groups are well established, highly organised, operate with considerable professionalism and enjoy insider status. Those that have acquired insider status are invited to make formal submissions on policy issues and have their views taken into account. Although they have significant differences in terms of their ideological perspectives, constitutions and credibility with policy-makers, they share a broadly left of centre approach. They use a range of informal and formal tactics including lobbying ministers and conducting media campaigns on specific issues (such as the Howard League for Penal Reform on the detention of children in adult prisons).

Single-issue campaign groups: such as the Ben Kinsella Trust, which was established to tackle the single issue of knife crime following the murder of Ben Kinsella. Although some groups (such as Women in Prison) have longevity, others tend to come and go as the issue that has sparked their formation ‘waxes and wanes’. Despite some cause groups (such as Sarah’s Law campaign group) attaining insider status, they tend to supplement engagement with formal policy-making processes with the adoption of tactics associated with outsider groups, seeking to publicise their causes through activities that will attract media attention.

Victims and those that lobby on their behalf: such as Victim Support, are cause groups that both provide practical and emotional assistance to victims of crime, and campaign on behalf of victims. They use formal and informal means to promote their cause. As the victim has moved from the margins of the criminal justice system, victims’ organisations have increasingly become insider pressure groups, enjoying privileged access to ministers and their officials. They are central figures in formal consultation processes and tend to be on the list of groups that receive invitations to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee and to make submissions to public consultations.

The general public: can express their preferences through the traditional means of the ballot box, as well as engaging in new forms of communication such as signing an e-petition to force a parliamentary debate, completing government online questionnaires on specific policy proposals, tweeting or emailing a member of parliament, taking part in opinion polls and focus groups, and giving feedback on talk-radio.

Media: whose voices increasingly serve as a ‘proxy for public opinion’. They can act as important sources to publicise the interests of pressure groups, and mobilise public support behind specific campaigns such as Sarah’s Law. As commercial enterprises, they tend to promote the policy preferences of their owners and readership. With the decline of the traditional elite, they are an important source of law and order knowledge, and play a role in public opinion formation.

Traditional and new experts: such as academics, commercial research companies and think tanks. The marketisation of research has created a wide pool of experts that governments can both consult and use to legitimate their policy decisions. Experts provide evidence to special advisors and ministers, through both formal and informal channels. In recent years, politicians have tended to prefer to consult think tanks rather than academics. However, think tanks are not politically neutral. They provide research and disseminate their data in order to promote the ideological or sectional interests of their members.

Multinational private firms that provide penal services: such as G4S and Serco. They use their close personal connections (the ‘old boy’ network) and the power of their financial contributions to political party coffers to gain the ear of politicians. Operating to promote the sectional interests of their members, they seek to influence governments to enact policies that will maximise their profit through the provision of penal services. They have a vested interest in global penal expansion.

International institutions and conventions of governance: such as the European Parliament, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. They...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on authors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Social change and criminal justice policy-making
• 3 Criminal justice and social policy
• 4 The criminal justice policy-making process – the formal and informal process
• 5 The expert and research-led criminal justice policy-making
• 6 The rise of the public voice, the victims’ movement and the mass media
• 7 International influences on criminal justice policy-making
• Glossary of key terms
• Index