-
The Comparative Method In Globalised Criminology
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
The
impact of globalization on crime and criminal justice is an important
consideration from the perspective of comparative research. One reason
for this is the link between globalisation and punitiveness, the main
point of interest of comparative criminology. Baker and Roberts (2005)
point to the various reasons why ‘new punitiveness’ is associated with
globalisation. They argue, however, that globalisation does not
necessarily cause punitiveness, as it is not a universal trend.
Globalisation is a complex phenomenon, which has definitely affected
penal policies, privileging punitive responses and facilitating ‘policy
transfer’, but it can as well ‘spark diverse, jurisdictionâ€specific
responses’ (Baker and Roberts 2005: 122).
A further reason is the
fact that globalisation, of itself, presents specific challenges to the
credibility of nation states: as crime increasingly displays
international dimensions, it is becoming more and more difficult for
nation states to deal with it. Globalists claim that a global
criminology instead of comparative criminology is needed to understand
what is happening in this field (Larsen and Smandych in Nelken 2011).
Statement of Problem
Comparative
criminologists have defended their discipline, pointing to differences
between countries due to local features, values and cultures. Further,
it has been argued that, for every global model explaining levels of
punitiveness, there are exceptions, as will be discussed later in this
contribution. In addition, there is at the same time the contradictory
process of glocalisation: the persistence of national and even regional
autonomy in the face of global pressures (Meyer and O’Malley 2005).
Globalisation doesn’t spell convergence, according to Lacey (2011);
therefore, comparative research on national and regional levels is
crucial to understand the mechanisms by which master narratives affect
penal policy in different ways, in different countries. Meaningful
comparative research needs to move back and forth between the global and
the local, refining the global model with local empirical data and
findings, as features within individual countries might explain how and
why they deviate from the leading pattern. Along the same lines,
Savelsberg (2011) concludes that both the study of globalisation and
crossâ€national comparative research are needed, and that they need to be
closely linked, as global trends are translated in a nationâ€specific
way and filtered through local institutions. Nelken (2011) agrees with
this view, pleading that comparative research is particularly well
placed to study the interaction between the global and local forces and
the ways how to best do this. Therefore, and according to these authors,
despite globalisation, comparative research still has a place within
criminology, identifying local dynamics and ways out of the doom
scenario of mass imprisonment (Lacey 2008). To contribute to this
existing body of literature is the major goal of this research.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 2 of 3
-
-
ABSRACT - [ Total Page(s): 1 ]The aim of this article is consider the current constitution, and likely future prospects, of the field of criminology, and to examine in particular how it might be becoming more global in nature. The term ‘criminology’ will be used broadly, referring to the academic field as a whole, and hence including the study of the causes of crime, responses to crime including criminal justice, as well as to the field’s many sub-disciplines. The article begins by considering internation ... Continue reading---
