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.

Theory Description

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).

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).

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).

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).

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

REFERENCES

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

Akbar, A. A. (2020). An abolitionist horizon for (police) reform. California Law Review, 108(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 Resistance, 5(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 Inquiry, 46(1), 32-68.

Brisman, A. (2011). Advancing critical criminology through anthropology. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 12(2), 55.

Brown, M., & Schept, J. (2017). New abolition, criminology and a critical carceral studies. Punishment & Society, 19(4), 440-462.

Bunn, R. (2019). Intersectional needs and reentry: Re-conceptualizing ‘multiple and complex needs’ post-release. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(3), 328-345.

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

Calathes, W. (2017). Racial capitalism and punishment philosophy and practices: What really stands in the way of prison abolition. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(4), 442-455.

Carastathis, A. (2014). The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philosophy compass, 9(5), 304-314.

Carlton, B. (2018). Penal reform, anti-carceral feminist campaigns and the politics of change in women’s prisons, Victoria, Australia. Punishment & Society, 20(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 Journal, 3(1), 28-44.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Chagnon, N. (2016). Criminology, gender, and race: A case study of privilege in the academy. Feminist Criminology, 11(4), 311-333.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Morash, M. (2013). Transformative feminist criminology: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology, 21(3), 287-304.

Cobbina-Dungy, J. E., & Jones-Brown, D. (2023). Too much policing: Why calls are made to defund the police. Punishment & Society, 25(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  Methodology, 2(1-2), 62-78.

Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. M. (2019). Indigenous peoples, criminology, and criminal  justice. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(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 Sciences, 12(3), 162.

Elhinnawy, H. (2023). Decolonising the curriculum: students’ perspectives in criminology. Race Ethnicity and Education, 26(5), 663-679.

Fleetwood, J., & Lea, J. (2020). De-funding the police in the UK. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 85(Summer), 25-35.

Frederick, B. J. (2012). The marginalization of critical perspectives in public justice core curricula. Western Criminology Review, 13(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 Democracy, 10(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 Quarterly, 3(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 Work, 27(3), 219-233.

Kitossa, T. (2020). Authoritarian criminology and racist statecraft: Rationalizations for racial profiling, carding and legibilizing the herd. Decolonization of Criminology and Justice, 2(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 Criminology, 9(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 Justice, 12(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 Services, 20(2), 112-128.

Potter, H. (2013). Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and power in criminological research and theory. Critical Criminology, 21, 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 Justice, 12(3), 548568.

Richie, B. E., & Martensen, K. M. (2020). Resisting carcerality, embracing abolition: Implications for feminist social work practice. Affilia, 35(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 Criminology, 17(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 Communications, 3(1), 1-8.

Stockdale, K. J., & Sweeney, R. (2022). Whose voices are prioritised in criminology, and why does it matter?. Race and Justice, 12(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 Criminology, 65(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 Criminology, 19(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 Criminology, 11, 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 Democracy, 10(4), 1-12.

Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8-19.

Whalley, E., & Hackett, C. (2017). Carceral feminisms: The abolitionist project and undoing dominant feminisms. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(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 Welfare, 12(3), 552.