13 Who Has the Power? Critical Criminology

Tristan Russell

Learning Objectives

  • Become familiar with the goals of critical criminology paradigms and their importance for the future of criminology and criminal justice.
  • Identify three main critical criminological perspectives: feminist criminology; Indigenous criminology; and abolitionist criminology.
  • Understand the criticisms of critical criminology, both related to mainstream criminology and within the critical criminology paradigm.

Before You Begin

  • Can you think of a time in your life when someone made an assumption about you that did not fit in with how you see yourself? How did that make you feel?
  • The last ten years has been filled with a great deal of social change, even in a place as stable as Australia. What are some examples of this that you have noticed? How do they affect your daily life?
  • Do you think that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed? Why or why not?

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will outline the emergence and significance of critical criminology, a paradigm[1] which directly challenges the ideologies and approaches of mainstream criminology. Critical criminologists position crime and crime control within broader structural and institutional contexts, directing attention toward the significance of social, cultural, political and economic inequalities. There are several perspectives that fall under the umbrella of critical criminology and they easily deserve a book of their own. To begin with, however, this chapter will introduce you to three main perspectives often applied in Oceanic criminology, The critical perspectives that will be explored in more detail are: feminist criminology; Indigenous criminology; and abolitionist criminology. While different critical criminological perspectives differ in their scope and specific aspirations, common to all is a commitment to social justice.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Critical criminology emerged in the 1960s-1970s to challenge the narrow scope of positivist/mainstream criminology, which maintained the idea that all phenomena can be understood through the application of scientific methods and was primarily concerned with crime as a result of individual ‘deficiency’ (Sian, 2017; Sykes, 1974; Tauri, 2013; Young, 1985). Indeed, the 1960s and 1970s was a time of great upheaval, with worldwide movements to improve the lives of women and minorities groups. As a result, many citizens were questioning the ‘status quo’ and asking uncomfortable questions about power in society. Criminologists were no expection. In earlier chapters, you have learned how different theorists tried to explain why an individual commits crime but there was much less research on why society causes people to commit crime. Like much of the western tradition, early criminological thought was developed and informed by the experiences and values of white, cisgender, heterosexual men seeking to uncover ‘universal’ truths. Underpinned by a positivist philosophy, mainstream criminologists boasted the importance of utilizing scientific methods to conduct research which was objective, neutral, and value-free[2] (Brown & Schept, 2017; Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013; Gonzalez, 2022). Critical criminologists challenged these assumptions,  denying that knowledge production can ever be truly objective or neutral; the social and political values of researchers influence what they choose to research, how they choose to conduct it, what background assumptions are adopted and how they interpret and report their findings (DeKeseredy, 2021; Frederick, 2012; Intemann, 2010).

Instead, critical criminologists acknowledge and embrace subjectivity, recognizing that individuals from different social locations have different lived experiences and perspectives. Thus, there exist multiple realities and dominant forms of can ignore and render the experienced of marginalised communities invisible. When this happens, only certain versions of knowledge are considered legitimate and others are excluded (Deckert, 2023; McHugh, 2020; Stoetzler & Yuval-Davis, 2002). This results in an “irrevocable disjuncture between scientific knowledge and everyday experiences” (Presdee, 2016, p. 41). Individuals with lived experiences do not feel that they are represented in the mainstream discussion of science.

Critical scholars draw attention toward the potential, and actual, dangers of mainstream criminological approaches. Knowledge generates power and meaning, and has been used as a weapon to dominate and control marginalised populations (Cunneen et al., 2017; Deckert, 2023; Kitossa, 2020; Tauri, 2013). Mainstream criminology has historically placed a strong emphasis on individualism and has been criticized for focusing attention on what individual can do to change to serve society, instead of how society can change to serve individuals (Kitossa, 2020; Tauri, 2013; Walklate, 2016). Critical criminologists re-conceptualise crime as a social construct; it is not static or fixed, but is fluid, with acts deemed ‘criminal’ changing across time and space[3]. An act is not ‘criminal’ until the state deems it as such; laws are not the consequence of natural forces but reflect “statements of the moral preferences of some versus those of others” (Chao, 2022; Chambliss et al., 2013, p. 4; Palmer et al., 2022; Richie & Martensen, 2020).

Positivist/mainstream criminology viewed crime as to the result individual ‘deficiency,’ but critical criminologists are sceptical of individualistic theories and narrow conceptions, of crime (DeKeseredy, 2021; Frederick, 2012; Sykes, 1974; Walklate, 2016; Young, 1985). Rather than being a ‘natural’ and ‘inheritable’ phenomenon, as noted above, crime is socially constructed. Instead of locating the causes of crime within individual traits, critical criminologists explore the wider structural and institutional determinants of crime, asserting that crime is rooted in social, economic, and political inequalities (Anthony & Cunneen, 2008; DeKeseredy, 2021). These inequalities  are viewed by critical scholars as forms of state violence. It is this form of state violence that critical criminologists are working together to stop.

CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGIES

There is not one single critical criminology; critical criminology can be better understood as a paradigm made up of multiple perspectives (DeKeseredy, 2021). Today, there exist at least 15 critical criminological theories with different histories, methods, and political perspectives. Common to all, however, is a focus on the wider structural and institutional contexts of criminalisation and punishment (DeKeseredy, 2021). All critical criminologists assert that the concepts of inequality and power are integral to understanding crime and crime control (Brisman, 2011). Thus, to reduce crime, we must address and overcome the inequalities it is rooted in. Directing our attention and resources toward ‘correcting’ the behaviours of criminalized and/or ‘at risk’ individuals will not result in reduced crime rates, nor will it create a safer society. A failure to acknowledge and address the wider structural and institutional forces just serves to reproduce the very conditions producing crime (Anthony & Cunneen, 2008; Brown & Schept, 2017; DeKeseredy, 2021). While it is not within the scope of this chapter to outline all critical criminological perspectives, we will explore, in more detail, three strains of the paradigm; namely feminist criminology; Indigenous criminology; and abolitionist criminology.

Feminist Criminology

Emerging in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the broader challenge to social and political consciousness, feminist criminology aimed to address the gender blindness of mainstream perspectives. Existing criminological knowledge either completely excluded girls and women or drew on problematic stereotypes of femininity to interpret their behaviours (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Gibbs & Gilmour, 2022). Feminist criminologists drew attention toward the fact that the structural forces shaping women’s lives are highly gendered, making gender a key force shaping crime and social control (Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013). However, early feminist criminologists emphasised gender inequality as the ultimate form of oppression, adopting the ideal of the ‘sameness’ of all women, whereby all women are subjected to patriarchal violence in similar ways (McHugh, 2020; Whalley & Hackett, 2017). Feminist knowledge production and activism platformed the experiences and perspectives of white, cis-gender, heterosexual women of the upper to middle class.

We know that there is not one singular shared reality among all women. Reality is experienced as a set of multiple interwoven systems (Carastathis, 2014; Potter, 2013; Rajah et al., 2022). These multiple interwoven systems can be seen through the lens of intersectionality. Intersectional feminism emerged from the work of Black feminists, who objected to the notion of ‘sameness’ among all women. American civil rights activist and legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw[4] coined the term, highlighting the multiple forms of oppression experienced by Black women simultaneously. In other words, Black women experience gender inequality and racism at the same time. She drew attention to the fact that Black women were largely excluded from the feminist movement, which showcased the realities of white women, and at the same time, were also excluded from the anti-racist movement, which highlighted the realities of Black men (Crenshaw, 1991). Intersectionality is now understood as the way in which any particular individual stands at the crossroads of multiple oppressed social statuses, with the existence of multiple interconnected layers of existence and identity (Bunn, 2019).

Individuals with intersecting identities of disadvantage are subjected to multiple systems of inequality working simultaneously (Carastathis, 2014; Trahan, 2011). For example, a woman who is white, cis-gender, heterosexual, and economically privileged experiences gender inequality and is subject to patriarchal violence; a queer woman of colour who is economically marginalized will simultaneously experience gender inequality, racial discrimination, homophobia, and classism. Intersectionality has not been fully embraced within the discipline of criminology, however, feminist criminology is increasingly diversifying. There are now feminist criminologists platforming the experiences of, to name a few, LGBTQ women, disabled women, and Indigenous women (Bunn, 2019).

Understanding the role of entitlement attitudes in male perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV)

A Masters Dissertation by Samantha Ohaka

Men’s violence towards women is an issue of high importance in today’s society and although IPV is perpetrated by all genders, women are the majority victims and men are the main perpetrators.  Domestic violence research continues to be an area of high importance, however, while IPV has received increasing attention from researchers, policy makers, legislators and the media, the prevalence rate has remained stable over at least the last 12 years.  To reduce prevalence of male perpetrated IPV, it is important to understand the key factors that influence perpetration. One of the key risk factors identified in the theoretical and empirical literature is attitudes supportive of IPV, including entitlement.

Data was used from a survey of individuals arrested on warrants from Omaha, Nebraska using a domestic violence addendum (N = 327). The addendum included measures of attitudes and risk factors expected to be related to IPV perpetration, such as exposure to childhood violence and attitudes towards violence.  IPV was the dependent variable, and there were four independent variables relating to various forms of entitlement: Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBWB), Intimate Partner Violence Justification Scale (IPVJS), Modified Jealousy-provoking Situation Scale (MJPSS), and the Entitlement to Domestic Privileges Scale (EDPS). Five variables were also used as controls in the regression models: accommodation, employment, problematic alcohol use, illegal drug use, and exposure to violence in childhood. A series of independent samples t-tests were completed to ascertain the association between the entitlement measures and IPV perpetration and four models of logistic regression were run to ascertain which elements of entitlement were statistically significant within the models.

A key finding from the results is that a main component of entitlement, namely attitudes condoning wife and partner abuse, measured in the current study using two scales (IBWB and IPVJS), increased the likelihood that male arrestees self-reported use of IPV in intimate relationships. This is in line with past research and corroborates results from multiple studies which found that attitudes supporting violence were linked to male IPV perpetration. It thus appears that attitudes that support men’s perceived entitlement to react violently in relationships contribute to IPV perpetration. Of the control variables, two were statistically significant, namely exposure to violence as a child and use of illicit substances.

Having an understanding of how attitudes can impact perpetration allows legislators, policy makers and frontline workers to better understand the issue and focus on how IPV perpetration can be targeted. As attitudes are not fixed and can be altered on an ongoing basis, recognising when entitlement related attitudes exist can then allow for targeted interventions to be implemented to assist in altering or reducing these attitudes. It is important to recognise the limitations that exist in terms of how frontline staff (e.g., police officers, staff running intervention programs, and magistrates directing perpetrators to undertake programs) can accurately and reliably estimate a person’s attitudes. Clinical assessments undertaken by mental health professionals can ascertain whether entitlement attitudes are present, however mental health professionals are not always available within frontline settings. Further consideration of how to assess this within these environments would aid in further undertaking assessments.

These findings add to the evidence base used to develop intervention programs, can aid in further targeting interventions to address these attitudes, and can also assist in evaluating and supplementing current intervention programs. However, further research is required to replicate these findings within other geographical locations and more is needed to identify when these attitudes exist so that interventions can be utilised appropriately.

Indigenous Criminology

There are also a number of critical criminologists dedicated to decolonizing the discipline, challenging the dominant ideologies that position white, male, heterosexual, western, capitalistic worldviews at the forefront (Elhinnawy, 2023). Much of this work is being carried out by Indigenous and non-western criminologists who argue that mainstream criminology was built on, and continues to inform, colonial societies’ views of race and racial inferiority; thus, playing an important role in mediating/justifying oppression (Agozino, 2019; Cunneen et al., 2017; Tauri, 2013). The perspectives of Indigenous scholars and communities tend to be ignored within mainstream criminology, and mainstream criminology has, for the most part, failed to meaningfully engage in research concerned with Indigenous issues. Even when mainstream criminologists have explored Indigenous issues, they have generally done so with an unhelpful orientation, largely failing to acknowledge the ongoing harms of colonization (including the harms imposed upon Indigenous peoples and communities by the criminal justice system) (Cunneen & Porter, 2017; Cunneen & Tauri, 2019; Goyes & South, 2021; Tauri, 2017).

Indigenous scholars highlight the need for an Indigenous criminology firmly based in an understanding of, and commitment to, Indigenous human rights. Indigenous criminological approaches conduct research for the benefit of Indigenous communities, allowing for Indigenous control over research, and enacting principles of respect, reciprocity, and responsibility (Cunneen et al., 2017; Cunneen & Tauri, 2019).

 

Social Justice Initiatives for First Nations People

First Nations People in Australia

There is a lack of adequate access to formal means of justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. First Nations people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system with numbers steadily increasing, especially Aboriginal women (Milroy et al, 2021). The justice system has historically, as well as currently, been used as a tool of social control, which has a significant impact on Indigenous communities as an ongoing effect of colonisation. Many of the underlying factors that lead Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to come in contact with the criminal justice system remain unaddressed, which leads to an inevitable individual and generational cycle of crime. These issues include racism or lack of cultural understanding. Location is also a factor with many communities situated in regional and remote areas (Staines, 2023).

There are a number of social justice initiatives that aim to address the underlying issues of disadvantage to improve the quality of life of First Nations people which, if achieved, would in theory lead to a reduction in overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. Many Indigenous focused social justice initiatives are centered on the principles of the right to self-determination, respect for and recognition of culture, land rights, and participation in decision making. These principles are used as guidelines or as a framework for which the initiative operates.

On Country Programs

On Country Programs were introduced in Queensland in 2020 with the aim to reduce rates of reoffending in young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 10 to 17 years by strengthening cultural connections to land through participation in activities led by local Elders and Traditional Owners. The programs are run by the community and focusses on strengthening family relationships and building a sense of identity with the goal to re-engage young people in education, training and employment.

Community Justice Groups

Community Justice Groups (CJG) is a Queensland program that provides primarily court support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in addition to prevention and intervention strategies in culturally safe ways. CJGs also deliver a range of other services within their communities aimed at reducing crime, addressing recidivism and promoting community wellbeing and healing. Examples of these services are crisis support, home visits, transportation, parenting programs, after-school and holiday programs, custody visits, men’s and women’s groups, yarning circles, on-country healing programs and other supports for clients transitioning from custody to back into community.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People was adopted by the General Assembly in 2007, with the Australian Government announcing its support in 2009. The Declaration affirms the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, security and well-being of First Nations people in Australia.  The Australian Human Rights Commission is responsible for implementing and supporting the Declaration and has a designated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.

Closing the Gap

Closing the Gap is a national agreement that includes targets for each State and Territory in Australia to reach to improve the quality of life of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are 17 targets that aim at various social and economic factors including health, education, and employment.

Queensland Path to Treaty

Co-designed in partnership with the Queensland government and First Nations organisations and representatives, the Path to Treaty is the progressing steps towards an agreement in the form of a Treaty. Victoria and the Northern Territory also have legislation to initiate agreements. To date, there is no Commonwealth Treaty.

Formal justice system support for First Nations People

There are support services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the formal justice system, including:  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (ATSILS), Murri Court and First Nations Womens Legal Services Qld (FNWLSQ). These services provide legal support when a First Nations person is charged with a crime. The level of support depends on the needs, in some cases a person may receive free legal representation, such as the service provided by ATSILS. The Murri Court operates in Queensland and is a specialised court for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants to attend. It is similar to mainstream court but with additional cultural support with Elders or respected persons in the community guiding the defendants and informing Magistrates of the defendants’ circumstances to better determine sentencing outcomes. Whilst these services are provided to assist First Nations people in court, the lack of access to other social services often results in the legal system being the means in which social issues are addressed that are beyond the scope of the court process.

Abolitionist Criminology

Many intersectional feminists and Indigenous criminologists, as well as those working within other strains of critical criminology, are working towards the abolition of the criminal justice system as we understand it today. Abolitionists call for the elimination of the criminal justice system as a whole, as well as the logics and technologies that fortify its legitimization and expansion (Bell, 2021; Carlton, 2018). They aregue that the criminal justice system reinforces and reproduces the very inequalities producing crime in the first place, with law and punishment used as weapons for domination (Calathes, 2017; Lamusse, 2022; McGlynn, 2022). We are currently living in an era of mass incarceration, whereby imprisonment has essentially become the ‘default’ response to social problems, with over 11 million people incarcerated worldwide (Lamusse, 2022; Penal Reform International, 2023; Richie & Martensen, 2020). However, crime rates are not increasing; rather, the key drivers of incarceration are punitive and discriminative criminal justice laws and policies, extreme sentences, and the under-use of alternative (non-custodial) measures (Penal Reform International, 2023). Authorities continue to invest in punitive criminal justice responses, divesting from other aspects of society (e.g. community resources).

The lack of resources available for social supports, healthcare, education and financial aid further disempowers marginalised communities, restricting the opportunities and life chances available to already vulnerable individuals (Brown & Schept, 2016; Richie & Martensen, 2020). Prisons house the most vulnerable members of society, and have been accused of trying to “disappear social problems by disappearing people” (Lamusse, 2022, p. 243). Imprisonment further diminishes individuals already limited social, cultural, political, and financial capital, and has long-term and wide-reaching ‘collateral’ consequences for families and entire communities (Lamusse, 2022; Western & Pettit, 2010). Thus, abolitionists urge us to direct our efforts toward overcoming the underlying structural conditions of crime, and to adopt non-punitive measures of addressing harm; measures which empower, rather than disenfranchise (Akbar, 2020; Bell, 2021; Brown & Schept, 2017).

THEORY APPLICATION

Feminist criminologists have drawn attention toward the gendered nature of criminalisation and punishment. The feminist pathways paradigm, which emerged from the work of Kathy Daly (1994), adopts a whole of life approach toward mapping the criminalisation pathways of women (and to a lesser degree, men). Feminist pathways scholars have illustrated that women’s criminalization is underpinned by a grouping of interrelated life factors, including: victimisation and trauma, mental ill-health, substance abuse, under-education, economic marginalisation, familial caretaking responsibilities, and limited access to justice (Jeffries et al., 2019; Owen et al., 2017; Russell et al., 2020; Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). While men’s pathways are characterized by many of the same factors, women’s pathways are gendered and distinct. For example, victimisation and trauma play a crucial role in women’s criminalisation. Compared to men, women tend to be victimised earlier in life, more frequently, and more severely (Jeffries et al., 2019; Owen et al., 2017). Additionally, women are more likely to be under-educated, economically marginalised, and to be primary caregivers of children and/or other family members. Thus, women find themselves imprisoned for crimes of survival (Jeffries et al., 2019; Owen et al., 2017).

It is important to note that pathways are not only gendered, but are shaped by multiple identities (e.g. race, class, sexuality, etc) (Owen et al., 2017). While this paradigm originated within western scholarship, there is now a growing body of literature mapping the pathways of criminalised women in non-western contexts. Feminist pathways studies conducted in Thailand have found similar results as in western contexts. Familial responsibilities, however, are more strongly emphasized in Thai society; women are expected to perform ‘daughter duties,’ whereby they are to provide financial and other forms of care to not only their immediate family, but also extended family, and sometimes their community. In light of precarious work conditions and spousal abandonment, many imprisoned women have found themselves criminalised for actions they have taken to provide for their family (Angeles & Sunanta, 2009; Jeffries et al., 2019, 2020; Russell et al., 2020).

Indigenous criminologists direct attention to the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, arguing that criminalization is a key process disrupting Indigenous communities and maintaining extensive state control (Cunneen & Porter, 2017; Cunneen & Tauri, 2019). While mainstream criminologists do discuss Indigenous over-representation, race tends to be treated merely as a variable, explored utilizing quantitative methods, with a lack of meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities, and largely devoid of critical analysis (Tauri, 2013; Wicks, 2022). Tauri (2013) notes that mainstream criminologists tend to avoid or sideline many structural determinants of the criminalization of Indigenous peoples, such as racist policing. 0).

Indigenous scholars recognise that Indigenous peoples are not more likely to engage in criminalized behaviours. Instead, Indigenous peoples are more likely to be subject to punitive criminal justice intervention. The Australian Law Reform Commission (2017) reported that Indigenous peoples were seven times more likely than non-Indigenous peoples to be charged with a criminal offence, and 12.5 times more likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment. Police practices play a key role here, with police acting as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. To a significant degree, police determine who enters the criminal justice system, especially for summary offences (Cunneen & Porter, 2017). Indigenous peoples and communities are over-policed, with over-policing referring to the degree and nature of police intervention. This is demonstrated through the number of police stationed in areas with large Indigenous communities, as well as the nature of policing practice towards Indigenous peoples, who are disproportionately arrested for public order offences, such as public drunkenness, and offensive language and/or behaviour (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2017; Cunneen, 2019).

Wrongful Convictions in Australia: Trends and Prevalence of Contributing Factors and Characteristics in the Last CenturyA Masters Dissertation by Anna L’Orange

Wrongful convictions are a byproduct of the criminal justice system, occurring through systemic and external factors, which can have social, economical and political ramifications if not addressed. While the issue of wrongful convictions has gained more social awareness recently, knowledge of the prevalence in Australia is limited and remains largely unexplored. This is due to the lack of resources, databases and governmental input dedicated to this topic. As these types of convictions often affect those most vulnerable to the justice system, it is imperative to identify what may contribute to their occurrence by analysing the characteristics of each case.

The study aimed to bridge this gap by creating a database of all known wrongful convictions from 1922 to 2021. The research extends from the previous work of Dioso-Villa (2015) who identified 71 wrongful convictions from 1922 to 2015. This study added a further 64 wrongful convictions to this dataset through exploration of websites, independent resources, media outlets and official court documents. Each case was then verified to ensure validity.

This totalled 135 wrongful convictions which were then examined by a number of demographics: decade; state; gender; age; race; criminal history; offence details; and exoneration status. These were also cross-referenced with 10 contributing factors: false confessions; police misconduct; faulty forensic evidence; perjury; withheld evidence; poor police investigation; improper court procedure; inadequate representation; misidentification; and time delay. By examining the relationships between all of these factors throughout the decades, we can help to identify patterns of wrongful convictions and what factors may contribute to these events.

Majority of convictions occurred in the 2010s (n=58). The first eight decades generally showed cases with multiple factors. Comparatively, the 2010s had 16 cases with one factor and 20 cases with two, the highest rate in the dataset. This indicated a narrower range of issues in modern periods.

The predominant factor was improper court procedure, present in 94 cases, followed by poor police investigation in 69 cases. Both are often associated with legal wrongful convictions, meaning cases were found erroneous based on the legal processes in which they were convicted.

Case characteristics also changed over time. Races, other than White, were not common until the 1990s. There was a rise in women offenders, from 3.7% first seen in the 1980s to 5.1% in 2010s. Additionally, cases involving non-violent crimes increased.

This study provides an insight into the scope of erroneous convictions in Australia, however due to limited legitimate resources, further research is essential to expand our knowledge.

The distinct lack of representation of other races is an issue which requires revaluation. This could be attributed to limited data due to Australia’s delayed acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians. This has bred systemic mistrust of the justice system which may result in wronged individuals not seeking justice. Further development of pathways to improve the relationship between Indigenous Australians and the justice system is necessary.

As the two leading contributing factors relate to police and court procedures, this indicates that these legal avenues require improvement to ensure accuracy. This could include training, courses and reform of current police practices and court processes to ensure a higher rate of efficiency.

Overall, more resources and governmental input must be allocated to this issue, to ensure trust in the process of the criminal system.

Wrongful convictions are an inevitable reality in the criminal justice system when human error is a factor. This study produced a database which enables insight into the connection of wrongful conviction factors as an effort to identify the issues of the justice system. However, more research needs to be conducted into why and how these convictions occur in order to improve the system which our society relies upon to be just, helping those most vulnerable to its flaws.

Despite the fact that arrest should be a last resort, Indigenous peoples are more likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to be arrested for minor offences, and less likely to receive a caution or a notice (Cunneen, 2019). This can have devastating, far-reaching consequences for individuals and communities, the most obvious example regarding Indigenous deaths in custody. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991) investigated 99 deaths of Indigenous peoples, most of whom had died in police custody, the majority having involved the use of custody for minor offences. (Cunneen & Porter, 2017). A number of recommendations were made. Between the release of the report in 1991 to 2022, however, there were an additional 516 recorded Indigenous deaths in custody (including police custody, prison custody, custody related operations, and youth justice). Between 2021 to 2022 alone, there were 16 Indigenous deaths in prison custody and eight in police custody. Of those who died in police custody during this period, only two were suspected of having committed a violent offence (McAlister & Bricknell, 2022).

Deaths in Custody in Australia

The importance of monitoring these incidents cannot be overstated. The Australian Institute of Criminology hosts a real-time dashboard of Deaths in Custody in Australia because this is such an important social issue. We checked the dashboard right before publication and as of February 15, 2024, there had already been 2 deaths of Indigenous individuals in custody.

Abolitionist arguments have gained more traction in recent years, due to increasing public recognition of the harms inflicted by the criminal justice system upon racialised individuals and communities. The repeated use of fatal force by police against people of colour has driven global protests against police violence and has resulted in the reemergence of calls to defund or abolish policing. For example, following the killing of George Floyd in 2020, protests erupted across the United States. These protests extended across most parts of the world, including Australia, where the excessive use of police force against Indigenous peoples remains a pervasive issue (Anthony & Chartrand, 2022; Cobbina-Dungy & Jones-Brown, 2021; Cunneen, 2023).

Protests surrounding police violence are not new, but the 2020 uprising further propelled defunding and abolition into the public domain, with calls to transform or abolish policing focused on the elimination of structural racism (Cobbina-Dungy & Jones-Brown, 2021; Walby & Gorkoff, 2023). Calls to defund the police generally refer to the systematic reduction of funding and power from police toward community supports, whereas calls for abolition refer to a complete end to policing. Abolitionists argue that police “exist only to enforce social order,” and do not provide real public safety, though they do cause harm through violence, racism, and corruption (Fleetwood & Lea, 2020; Walby & Gorkoff, 2023).

CRITICISMS

Critical criminology has, of course, garnered criticism from mainstream criminologists, who tend to reject critical perspectives as being “idealistically utopian” (Frederick, 2012, p. 23). More importantly, though, critical scholars are also critical of both themselves and others within the paradigm. For example, feminist criminology has not only been criticised for representing only a specific population of women, but also for contributing toward the expansion of the carceral state[5]/criminal justice system. In the early 1970s, feminist criminology and the feminist anti-violence movement drew attention toward the pervasive and widespread nature of violence against women, which helped make a number of changes to criminal justice policy and practice related to sexual and domestic violence (Heiner & Tyson, 2017; Kim, 2018; Whalley & Hackett, 2017). Feminist calls for greater awareness and accountability largely focused on measures to expand criminal justice responses to domestic and sexual violence (Heiner & Tyson, 2017; Kim, 2018; Lamusse, 2022; Whalley & Hackett, 2017). However, while the criminal justice system can potentially be a powerful mechanism for challenging abuse, it also perpetuates harm, disproportionately impacting marginalised communities (Lynch, 2000; McGlynn, 2022; Richie & Martensen, 2020). As McGlynn (2022, p. 2) notes, “in turning to law, we risk legitimizing it,” broadening its scope to enact power and control over the most vulnerable members of society.

Several feminist criminologists continue to mobilise the criminal justice system in their fight against violence against women; a recent example being the push for the criminalization of coercive control in Australian jurisdictions. Abolitionists have argued that such law reform will only repeat the mistakes of the past, further harming marginalised communities and doing little to protect victims. The introduction of new laws fails to truly protect victims and society at large because the existing systematic failures of the criminal justice system are overlooked and, thus, legitimized (Jones & Anyieth, 2023; Walklate & Fitz-Gibbon, 2021). Of course, violence against women is a serious social problem which should be addressed. The question, however, is whether the criminal justice system is the right way to address these harms. Abolitionists argue that, since the criminal justice system “serves to maintain conditions of structural violence… such a system cannot be trusted to intervene in harm” (Kim, 2018, p. 227).

Additionally, critical scholarship arguing, and showing support, for prison reform also contributes toward the expansion of the carceral state. Attempts to make prisons more responsive to criminalized individuals’ unique experiences and needs legitimize the existence of the carceral system (Carlton, 2018; Pollack, 2009; Russell & Carlton, 2013). While prison reforms may reduce some harms experienced by incarcerated individuals, a ‘kinder’ prison is still a prison. Even if some level of individual rehabilitation is achieved, once released from prison, people continue to face the very conditions (e.g. racism, poverty, etc.) that led to their criminalization in the first place (Heiner & Tyson, 2017; Whalley & Hackett, 2017). Essentially, abolitionists believe that we must direct our efforts and resources to dismantling the wider structural and institutional conditions producing crime in the first place. This requires a long-term commitment toward radical transformative change (Akbar, 2020; Carlton, 2018; Kim, 2018; Lamusse, 2022).

THE FUTURE OF CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY

Despite the emergence and growth of critical criminological perspectives, positivist ideals still dominate the discipline. Criminology remains a largely masculinized, Eurocentric discipline (Brown & Schept, 2016; Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016; Duggan & Bishop, 2023; Gonzalez, 2022). The failure to incorporate alternative perspectives and voices serves to reinforce ineffective and outdated status quo policies and procedures within the administration of justice (Frederick, 2012). Frederick (2012, p. 28) argues that “without cultivating new scholars to the field, the degree to which both critical and mainstream criminologists can collectively address the societal sources of crime will be severely limited.” Thus, critical criminological scholars call for a more inclusive curriculum, reconciling criminological data with the lived experiences or marginalised communities (Elhinnawy, 2023; Rajah et al., 2022; Stockdale & Sweeney, 2022).

Despite still occupying the margins of the discipline, the critical criminological paradigm continues to expand and evolve. The criminal justice system continues to expand, devastating individuals, families, and entire communities. To combat this, and to enhance public safety, we must not distract ourselves by focusing only on individual and interpersonal factors. Instead, we must fight for social justice andfor an equitable society (Akbar, 2020; Bell, 2021; Brown & Schept, 2017). We must continue to challenge the dominant ideologies reinforcing the status quo, advancing diversity and inclusion. We must also continuously challenge ourselves, reflecting on our own social positions, our positions within the criminological discipline, and both the potential (and actual) intended and unintended consequences of our work. We must confront, and grapple with, our own privilege and discomfort, recognizing the subjectivity of reality and truth (Rajah et al., 2022). As the critical criminological paradigm continues to evolve, we must be willing to evolve with it. 2021).

CONCLUSION

Critical criminology has broadened the scope of the criminological discipline, challenging mainstream criminology’s reliance on individualism, reconceptualizing crime as a social construct, and directing attention toward the wider structural and institutional determinants of crime. The critical criminological paradigm is made up of several perspectives, all of which acknowledging that crime is rooted in inequalities. Such inequalities are reinforced and reproduced by both the criminal justice system and mainstream criminological knowledge, which reflect and serve the interests of those with power and authority at the expense of marginalised populations. Critical criminologists call for more representation and inclusion within the discipline, highlighting the need for greater diversity of voices, experiences, and research approaches. The paradigm continues to expand and evolve with new perspectives likely to continue to emerge.

Check Your Knowledge

 

Discussion Questions

  1. The experience of intersectionality is incredibly important to several critical criminology paradigms. What are some examples of intersectionality that may apply in your own life or the lives of others? How do you think these groups are treated by the criminal justice system? Can you think of situations where one status is prioritized over another?
  2. What would the abolition of the criminal justice system look like to you? Are there other forms of social control that you believe could step in and take over the functions of the criminal justice system? Why or why not?
  3. One of the criticisms of feminist criminology is that by pushing for the legalisation of certain crimes against women and family, the approach has caused more underrepresented peoples to come under the umbrella of criminal justice system contact. Do you support this argument? Why or why not?

REFERENCES

Agozino, B. (2019). Humanifesto of the decolonization of criminology and justice. Decolonization of Criminology and Justice1(1), 5-28.

Akbar, A. A. (2020). An abolitionist horizon for (police) reform. California Law Review108(6), 1781-1846.

Angeles, L. C., & Sunanta, S. (2009). Demanding daughter duty: Gender, community, village transformation, and transnational marriages in northeast Thailand. Critical Asian Studies, 41(1), 549-574.

Anthony, T., & Chartrand, V. (2022). States of prison abolition: COVID-19 and anti-colonial and anti-racist organising. Justice, Power and Resistance5(1-2), 46-66.

Australian Law Reform Commission. (2017). Pathways to justice—Inquiry into the incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/pathways-to-justice-inquiry-into-the-incarceration-rate-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-alrc-report-133/

Bell, M. (2021). Abolition: A new paradigm for reform. Law & Social Inquiry46(1), 32-68.

Brisman, A. (2011). Advancing critical criminology through anthropology. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society12(2), 55.

Brown, M., & Schept, J. (2017). New abolition, criminology and a critical carceral studies. Punishment & Society19(4), 440-462.

Bunn, R. (2019). Intersectional needs and reentry: Re-conceptualizing ‘multiple and complex needs’ post-release. Criminology & Criminal Justice19(3), 328-345.

Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist criminology1(1), 27-47.

Calathes, W. (2017). Racial capitalism and punishment philosophy and practices: What really stands in the way of prison abolition. Contemporary Justice Review20(4), 442-455.

Carastathis, A. (2014). The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philosophy compass9(5), 304-314.

Carlton, B. (2018). Penal reform, anti-carceral feminist campaigns and the politics of change in women’s prisons, Victoria, Australia. Punishment & Society20(3), 283-307.

Chambliss, W. J., Michalowski, R., & Kramer, R. (Eds.). (2013). State crime in the global age. Willan.

Chao, Y. H. (2022). Critical criminology: Past, present, and future. Contemporary Challenges: The Global Crime, Justice and Security Journal3(1), 28-44.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Chagnon, N. (2016). Criminology, gender, and race: A case study of privilege in the academy. Feminist Criminology11(4), 311-333.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Morash, M. (2013). Transformative feminist criminology: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology21(3), 287-304.

Cobbina-Dungy, J. E., & Jones-Brown, D. (2023). Too much policing: Why calls are made to defund the police. Punishment & Society25(1), 3-20.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In The public nature of private violence, (pp. 93-118). Routledge.

Cunneen, C. (2019). Criminalisation and policing in Indigenous communities. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal relations, (pp. 89-107). Oxford University Press.

Cunneen, C. (2023). Decoloniality, abolitionism, and the disruption of penal power. In Decolonizing the Criminal Question: Colonial Legacies, Contemporary Problems, (pp. 19-36). Oxford University Press.

Cunneen, C., & Porter, A. (2017). Indigenous peoples and criminal justice in Australia. In The Palgrave handbook of Australian and New Zealand criminology, crime and justice, (pp. 667-682). Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunneen, C., Rowe, S., & Tauri, J. (2017). Fracturing the colonial paradigm: Indigenous  epistemologies and methodologies. Méthod(e)s: African Review of Social Sciences  Methodology2(1-2), 62-78.

Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. M. (2019). Indigenous peoples, criminology, and criminal  justice. Annual Review of Criminology2(1), 359-381.

Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Deckert, A. (2023). Neo-colonial criminology 10 Years on: The silence continues. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy.

DeKeseredy, W. S. (2021). Contemporary critical criminology. Routledge.

Duggan, M., & Bishop, C. (2023). “Our teaching Is rocking their ontological security”: Exploring the emotional labour of transformative criminal justice pedagogy. Social Sciences12(3), 162.

Elhinnawy, H. (2023). Decolonising the curriculum: students’ perspectives in criminology. Race Ethnicity and Education26(5), 663-679.

Fleetwood, J., & Lea, J. (2020). De-funding the police in the UK. British Society of Criminology Newsletter85(Summer), 25-35.

Frederick, B. J. (2012). The marginalization of critical perspectives in public justice core curricula. Western Criminology Review13(3), 21-33.

Gibbs, A., & Gilmour, F. (Eds.). (2022). Women, crime and justice in context: Contemporary perspectives in feminist criminology from Australia and New Zealand. Routledge.

Gonzalez, C. M. F. (2022). A call for a Black feminist liberatory ethics in criminological research on Black women and girls’ offending and victimization. Crime & Delinquency, 0(0).

Goyes, D. R., & South, N. (2021). Indigenous worlds and criminological exclusion: A call to reorientate the criminological compass. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy10(3), 115-128.

Heiner, B. T., & Tyson, S. K. (2017). Feminism and the carceral state: Gender-responsive justice, community accountability, and the epistemology of antiviolence. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly3(1).

Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778-796.

Jeffries, S., Chuenurah, C., & Wallis, R. (2019). Gendered pathways to prison in Thailand for drug offending? Exploring women’s and men’s narratives of offending and criminalisation. Contemporary Drug Problems, 46(1), 78-104.

Jones, B., & Anyieth, A. K. (2023). CALD communities as “collateral damage” in the criminalization of coercive control: An argument for prioritizing civil system reform over further criminalization in Victoria. Violence Against Women, 0(0).

Kim, M. E. (2018). From carceral feminism to transformative justice: Women-of-color feminism and alternatives to incarceration. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work27(3), 219-233.

Kitossa, T. (2020). Authoritarian criminology and racist statecraft: Rationalizations for racial profiling, carding and legibilizing the herd. Decolonization of Criminology and Justice2(1), 5-36.

Lamusse, T. (2022). Feminist prison abolitionism. In Women, crime and justice in context: Contemporary perspectives in feminist criminology from Australia and New Zealand (pp. 239-252). Routledge.

Lynch, M. J. (2000). The power of oppression: Understanding the history of criminology as a science of oppression. Critical Criminology9(1-2), 144-152.

McAlister, M., & Bricknell, S. (2022). Deaths in custody in Australia 2021–22. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/sr41_deaths_in_custody_2021-22_v2.pdf

McGlynn, C. (2022). Challenging anti-carceral feminism: Criminalisation, justice and continuum thinking. In Women’s Studies International Forum, 93(1), 102614.

McHugh, M. C. (2020). Feminist qualitative research: Working toward transforming science and social justice. In The oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 200-242). Oxford University Press.

Owen, B., Wells, J., & Pollock, J. (2017). In search of safety: Confronting inequality in women’s imprisonment. Oakland: University of California Press

Palmer, J. E., Rajah, V., & Wilson, S. K. (2022). Anti-racism in Criminology: An oxymoron or the way forward?. Race and Justice12(3), 531-547.

Penal Reform International. (2023). Global Prison Trends 2023.https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GPT-2023.pdf

Pollack, S. (2009). “You can’t have it both ways”: Punishment and treatment of imprisoned women. Journal of Progressive Human Services20(2), 112-128.

Potter, H. (2013). Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and power in criminological research and theory. Critical Criminology21, 305-318.

Presdee, M. (2016). The story of crime: Biography and the excavation of transgression. In Cultural criminology unleashed (pp. 55-62). Routledge-Cavendish.

Rajah, V., Palmer, J. E., & Duggan, M. (2022). The personal is political and so is discomfort: Intersectional, anti-racist praxis in feminist criminology. Race and Justice12(3), 548568.

Richie, B. E., & Martensen, K. M. (2020). Resisting carcerality, embracing abolition: Implications for feminist social work practice. Affilia35(1), 12-16.

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) (1991) Canberra: AGPS.

Russell, E., & Carlton, B. (2013). Pathways, race and gender responsive reform: Through an abolitionist lens. Theoretical Criminology17(4), 474-492.

Russell, T., Jeffries, S., Hayes, H., Thipphayamongkoludom, Y., & Chuenurah, C. A gender comparative exploration of women’s and men’s pathways to prison in Thailand. (2020). Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 536-562.

Sian, K. (2017). Born radicals? Prevent, positivism, and ‘race-thinking’. Palgrave Communications3(1), 1-8.

Stockdale, K. J., & Sweeney, R. (2022). Whose voices are prioritised in criminology, and why does it matter?. Race and Justice12(3), 481-504.

Stoetzler, M., & Yuval-Davis, N. (2002). Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory, 3(3), 315-  333.

Sykes, G. M. (1974). The rise of critical criminology. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology65(2), 206-213.

Tauri, J. M. (2013). Indigenous critique of authoritarian criminology. In Crime, justice and social democracy: International perspectives (pp. 217-233). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Tauri, J. M. (2017). Imagining an Indigenous criminological future. In The Palgrave handbook of Australian and New Zealand criminology, crime and justice, (pp. 769-783). Palgrave Macmillan.

Trahan, A. (2011). Qualitative research and intersectionality. Critical Criminology19(1), 1-14.

Walby, K., & Gorkoff, K. (2023). 10.4 Emergent Elements of Critical Criminology. In  Introduction to criminology.  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Walklate, S. (2016). Whither criminology: Its global futures?. Asian Journal of Criminology11, 47-59.

Walklate, S., & Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2021). Why criminalise coercive control?: The complicity of the criminal law in punishing women through furthering the power of the state. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy10(4), 1-12.

Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus139(3), 8-19.

Whalley, E., & Hackett, C. (2017). Carceral feminisms: The abolitionist project and undoing dominant feminisms. Contemporary Justice Review20(4), 456-473.

Wicks, N. (2022). Why Is my criminology curriculum still so white? “Race” and racism as “blind spots” in UK criminology teaching and student recommendations for the future. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1-17.

Young, T. R. (1985). Social justice vs. criminal justice: an agenda for critical criminology. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare12(3), 552.


  1. A paradigm in the social sciences is a description of the interaction of human beings in society.
  2. Go back and have a look at Chapter 1 for more detail about the idea of criminology as an “objective” science.
  3. Refer to the discussion in Chapter 2 of “crime as a social construction” for more discussion.
  4. For more information about intersectionality, refer to Professor Crenshaw’s video here.
  5. When criminologists are talking about the carceral state, they refer to the ideologies as well as the practices and structures that result in punitive approaches to crime and contribute to more people being incarcerated.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice Copyright © 2024 by Tristan Russell is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book