Suchergebnisse

The Lived Sentence -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Core Hypotheses -- 2 The Socio-Political Context of Imprisonment in New South Wales -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Major Enquiries -- 2.3 Popular Sensibilities and Penal Politics -- 2.4 Expansion of the Prison Estate -- 2.5 Transmission/Extension of Penal Relations -- 2.6 Evaluation and Accountability -- 2.7 Legislative Changes -- Sentencing -- Bail -- Parole -- 2.8 Risk + "What Works" = A Limited Version of Rehabilitation -- 2.9 Conclusion -- 3 Theorising Sentencing -- 3.1 Introduction -- Sentencing as a Lived Experience -- Courts and Prisons -- The Subjectivity of the Sentencers -- 3.2 Sentencing in NSW -- 3.3 The Aims of Sentencing in NSW -- Punishment -- Prevention of Crime by Deterrence -- Protection of the Community -- Rehabilitation -- Accountability -- Denunciation -- Recognise Harm Done to Victim (and Community) -- 3.4 Risk and NSW Courts -- Risky Subjects-Sex Offenders -- Preventive Detention of Sex Offenders in NSW-Advance Guard for Risk-Technology-Reliant Judges? -- Cementing Them in Their Cells-Risk as a Cipher for Punishment and Denunciation -- Sentencing and Risk-Freiberg's "Guerrilla Judges" -- Sentencing and Risk-Case Law -- 3.5 Conclusion -- 4 Experiencing Sentencing -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Reasons for Judgment and Remarks on Sentence -- 4.3 Prisoners and Sentence Comments/Remarks -- Only a Number? -- In No State to Listen -- Strangers in a Strange Land -- Condemning the Person, Not the Act -- The Turning Point-The Power of Positive Comments -- Getting Sentence Comments -- 4.4 Remorse in Criminal Justice -- The Inconvenience of Innocence -- The Parole Authority and Innocence -- The Elephant in the Room: The Relationship Between "Truth" and Redemption and the Unbearable Unfairness of the Privileged Narrative -- 4.5 Conclusion

This article examines the ways in which offenders are required to provide very particular accounts of themselves and to self-narrate in confined ways. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews conducted in the New South Wales justice system, it explores how the stories that offenders are made to accept and tell about themselves often bear little relationship to their own reflections. It analyses how, despite the expectations of judges and prison authorities, these self-narratives are not products of an offender's soul-searching concerning his past actions and experience; rather they are products of an official legal narrative being imposed on an offender whose capacity to own and enact such a narrative is already seriously compromised.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's largest appellate court, with jurisdiction over 15 judicial districts and 61 million people—almost 20 percent of the nation's population—spans from Alaska to Arizona, from Montana to Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being an environmentally sensitive court, but the court is as diverse as the terrain over which it has jurisdiction. Due to its size, the court's en banc reviews do not include all 29 judges but instead only panels of 11. Thus, Ninth Circuit en banc panels can reflect the kind of diversity of opinion they aim to reduce. Recently, the two en banc decisions discussed in this article—Lands Council v. McNair and Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service—displayed the court's apparently schizophrenic approach to review of agency environmental decision-making. A unanimous court in Lands Council called for more deference to Forest Service decisions favoring timber harvests, while the Karuk Tribe majority, with barely a reference to Lands Council, gave close scrutiny to the Forest Service's interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. The latter decision prompted a bitter dissent from the author of Lands Council, Judge Milan Smith, which seemed to be more of a political diatribe than legal criticism and may have been aimed at attracting the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the varying results of the two cases can be reconciled, we think that they epitomize a deep philosophical rift within the court on environmental issues, and we include an appendix suggesting to litigators on which side of the environmental divide certain Ninth Circuit judges may fall.

In the UK, mental health service users are asked to "tell their stories" within clinical settings as a tool for diagnosis, formulation and treatment plans. Retelling, reliving and reflecting on traumatic and distressing experiences is not a benign activity. Yet the process of reframing lived experience within a personal narrative could support the development of: a more positive identity; self-management skills and improved social connections (Slade, 2009) and therefore contribute to mental health recovery. This is an exploration of my process as a wounded researcher in the development of a version of my narrative as an autoethnography. I developed a series of 54 vignettes that described memories of my lived experience. To start, I used memorable quotes - the voices of others within my narrative. Developing and analyzing my autoethnography was visceral. It highlighted aspects of my process (and the likely process of others) and raised many unresolved dilemmas. For example: what was left out or left unsaid and the issue of "narrative truth" (Craib, 2004); reordering the vignettes for coherence; the role of relational ethics; and the impact on my identity of this difficult on-going process. It impacted on my mental health, but it has been a crucial part of my recovery.

Co-production; prisons; criminal justice; youth detention

"This book explores practical examples of co-production in criminal justice research and practice. Through a series of seven case studies, the authors examine what people do when they co-produce knowledge in criminal justice contexts: in prisons and youth detention centres; with criminalised women; from practitioners' perspectives; and with First Nations communities. Co-production holds a promise: that people whose lives are entangled in the criminal justice system can be valued as participants and partners, helping to shape how the system works. But how realistic is it to imagine criminal justice 'service users' participating, partnering, and sharing genuine decision-making power with those explicitly holding power over them? Taking a sophisticated yet accessible theoretical approach, the authors consider issues of power, hierarchy and different ways of knowing to understand the perils and possibilities of co-production under the shadow of 'justice'. In exploring these complexities, the book brings cautious optimism to co-production partners and project leaders. This book provides a foundational text for scholars and practitioners seeking to apply co-production principles in their research and practice. With stories from Australia, the UK and Ireland, the text will appeal to the international community. For students of criminology and social work, the book's critical insights will enhance their work in the field"--