Suchergebnisse

ObjectiveTo survey the contemporary literature in the social and biological sciences relevant to race that examines both the reality and the usefulness of the concept. Race is considered a major correlate of criminal behavior, and thus a fresh look at the concept is of obvious importance to criminologists and sociologists.MethodSocial, genetic, medical, and criminology databases were keyword searched for articles on race that either addressed its existence/nonexistence or usefulness as a concept.ResultsWe find that biologist and social constructionists talk past one another and never venture beyond the comfort of their own positions. Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories.ConclusionThere is much to gain by recognizing that these categories differ genetically, and that we can dispense with the term race in favor of some other term such as population or ethnic group and nothing would be lost except a word.

This paper contributes to a rethinking of animal abuse control and animal welfare protection in criminology, specifically, and in the social sciences more broadly. We do this, first, through a broad mapping of the institutional control complex around animal abuse in contemporary Britain. Second, we focus on the institutional strategies and practices, past and present, of the main agency of animal protection, and the policing thereof, in this society, namely the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). In looking back to this charity's growth since the first decades of the nineteenth century at the time of the birth of modern industrial capitalism and also to its current rationale and practices as a late-modern, corporate organisation, we explore the seeming paradox of a private body taking a lead on the regulation and prosecution of illegalities associated with animal-human relationships. Finally, the ideology and strategy of the RSPCA are explored in the context of the often visceral and culturally influential 'morality war' associated with proponents, respectively, of animal rights ('abolition') and 'anthropic' welfare proponents ('regulation' and 'protection').

This paper contributes to a rethinking of animal abuse control and animal welfare protection in criminology, specifically, and in the social sciences more broadly. We do this, first, through a broad mapping of the institutional control complex around animal abuse in contemporary Britain. Second, we focus on the institutional strategies and practices, past and present, of the main agency of animal protection, and the policing thereof, in this society, namely the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). In looking back to this charity's growth since the first decades of the nineteenth century at the time of the birth of modern industrial capitalism and also to its current rationale and practices as a late-modern, corporate organisation, we explore the seeming paradox of a private body taking a lead on the regulation and prosecution of illegalities associated with animal-human relationships. Finally, the ideology and strategy of the RSPCA are explored in the context of the often visceral and culturally influential 'morality war' associated with proponents, respectively, of animal rights ('abolition') and 'anthropic' welfare proponents ('regulation' and 'protection').

There is growing recognition in criminology and social work of the importance of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies. Yet to date there have been limited attempts (particularly in criminology and criminal justice social work) to consider the theoretical and practice implications of Indigenous understandings and approaches to these disciplines. Both disciplines have also been slow to recognise the importance of understanding the way in which colonial effects are perpetuated through knowledge control, particularly in the operation of criminal justice systems. Our paper thus begins by examining the historical and institutional factors that have contributed to the continuing subjugation of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies. A discussion of the connections between the hegemony of Western science, the construction of race, and the colonial project follows. While herein Western and Indigenous approaches are conceptualised broadly, the dangers of over-simplifying these categories is also acknowledged. The paper proceeds by examining the distinctive character of each approach through a consideration of their ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological differences. Whilst acknowledging the considerable challenges which arise in any attempt to develop connections between these differing worldviews, a pathway forward for understanding both theoretically and methodologically the relationship between Western and Indigenous approaches is proposed.

AbstractThe development of a masculine criminology is something that has been missing from much of the criminological literature. Until recently, there was little consideration given to the concept of masculinity as a tool for understanding men and criminal behaviour. Therefore, this article discusses the relevance of masculinity as a tool for developing our understanding of male criminality with reference to the case of Raoul Moat. The discussion focuses upon the social construction of masculine identity and the relationship that exists between masculinity and criminality as both theoretical and analytical concepts in the study of men and crime.

All three of the books under review— Science and Social Science by Malcolm Williams, Rethinking Science by Jan Faye, and Open the Social Sciences by the members of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences (Immanuel Wallerstein, chair)—argue for a broadly naturalist approach in which the social sciences are seen as of a piece with the natural sciences. Fortunately, all three do so in a discriminating way that avoids simple options and that appreciates the important ways the social-scientific disciplines require their own approach. Open the Social Sciences in particular also contains detailed and wise advice as to how the contemporary social sciences should proceed if they want to fulfill their ambition to explain human social behavior in a scientific way.

Over the past quarter century, a growing volume of rural-focused criminological work has emerged. In this article, the literature related to three rural criminological issues are examined and discussed in terms of their lessons for critical criminology. Research on rural communities and crime is examined as a way to criticize and challenge mainstream criminological theories and concepts like social disorganisation and collective efficacy, and to remind critical criminologists of the importance for developing critical perspectives for place-based or ecological theories of crime. Agricultural crime studies are discussed in terms of the need to develop a critical criminology of agriculture and food. Finally, criminological studies of rural 'others' is used to show the need for critical criminologists to give greater analytic attention to divisions and marginalities of peoples living in smaller and more isolated places based on gender, race, and lifestyles, among other factors.

Criminologists around the globe are writing about the disproportionate criminalization of minority groups and – in the US in particular – about racial disproportionality in all aspects of the criminal justice system. This wealth of knowledge in progressive criminology rarely animates reform efforts: it has had little impact on formal policymaking, and has failed to animate the work of grassroots activists engaged in the fight for justice system reform. Yet given the increased criminalization of young people in poor communities – and the possibilities for change at this very moment – progressive criminological ideas have never been more important. We need to think about ways to make them public. Toward this end, this paper discusses possible partnerships between progressive criminology and social justice organizations struggling to transform the criminal justice system. While describing nine such groups, we detail a set of recommendations for bridging the gap between progressive criminology and social justice organizations.