Coalition commitment to protect civil liberties and roll back state intrusion is unfulfilled argue criminal justice experts. Embargo: Wednesday 7 December 2011 00:01 (16/12/11)
The Coalition government's promise to "reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion" has remained unfulfilled, according to a wide-ranging review of its criminal justice policies in a new issue of Criminal Justice Matters published today (07/12/11) by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Authors argue:
- that at the front end of criminal justice, changes to stop and search, anti-social behaviour orders, police bail, decision-making on charging, and legal aid have resulted in the police having greater, often summary and arbitrary powers over the individual and less accountability for their actions.
- the promised 'rehabilitation revolution' and commitment to restore rationality to sentencing has foundered, if not been blown away in the wake of this Summer's riots. Wider reforms to the governance of policing, in particular the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners, are likely to result in a fragmenting of political responsibility in this field and open the police to even greater, populist 'law and order' demands.
- the Coalition has 'stood on the sidelines' in the development of European criminal law and shown outright hostility to giving effect to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights upholding the liberties of those at the sharp end of criminal justice.
As the guest editors of the issue, Professors Lee Bridges and Ed Cape, point out:
It's as if the government's commitment to 'fundamental human freedoms' is one that implies its own freedom from due process and the rule of law.
Richard Garside, Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies said:
`The critical scrutiny of the government initiatives on criminal justice reforms is central to what the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies does. This issue of Criminal Justice Matters continues our commitment to apply the fruits of research knowledge and expertise to what remains one of the most contested and politicised of public policy areas.'
Also in this issue of cjm are the following topical articles:
Kevin Haggerty and Ariane Ellerbrok examine the cultural and historical context of serial killing; Lorraine Hope and Bridget Waller propose a simple modification to jury deliberations and Tom Considine argues that the Newlove Report could cause more problems than it solves.
ENDS
Contact: Will McMahon 020 7840 6110
NOTES TO EDITORS A full list of articles can be found at the bottom of this media release.
- Criminal Justice Matters is the magazine of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies published in partnership with Routledge, Taylor and Francis. The views expressed in the magazine do not necessarily represent those of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. This issue of Criminal Justice Matters is available to members via the Routledge website.
- The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is an independent public interest charity that engages with the worlds of research and policy, practice and campaigning. Its mission is to inspire enduring change by promoting understanding of social harm, the centrality of social justice and the limits of criminal justice. Its vision is of a society in which everyone benefits from equality, safety, social and economic security.
EDITORIAL
Cuts, state power and individualising responsibility
Arianna Silvestri introduce this issue of cjm
NEWS
News from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
TOPICAL ISSUE AND COMMENT
The social study of serial killers
Kevin Haggerty and Ariane Ellerbrok examine the cultural and historical context of serial killing
Twelve (not so) angry men: jurors work better in small groups
Lorraine Hope and Bridget Waller propose a simple modification to jury deliberations
The Newlove Report: a new opportunity or an obligation for communities to confront crime?
Tom Considine argues that the report could cause more problems than it solves
Mothers in prison: the rights of the child
Rona Epstein looks at whether the courts take into account the rights of children when imprisoning mothers
THEMED SECTION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNDER THE COALTION JUSTICE UNDER THE COALITION
Criminal justice under the Coalition
Lee Bridges and Ed Cape introduce the themed section for this issue
Wither the Rehabilitation Revolution?
Nicola Padfield assesses the sentencing reforms
Stop and search - renewed powers, less accountability?
Rebekah Delsol detects worrying trends
The use of section 60 powers in Brent
Patrick Jacobs considers the targeting of stop and search in the London borough
Police bail without charge: a funny way to restore lost rights
The Coalition government, argues Ed Cape, failed its own test at the first hurdle
ASBOs are dead, long live ASBOs
Sally Ireland discusses the proposed changes for dealing with anti-social behaviour
An `ethos of mutual support'? The relationship between the police and the CPS
Mandy Burton questions an apparent shift in power
Will defendants survive changes to criminal legal aid?
Anthony Edwards analyses cuts-led reforms and their implications
Localism and police reform - improving or fragmenting accountability?
Lee Bridges asks where accountability over policing will really lie
Playing from the sidelines: the European dimension to criminal justice policy
Ed Cape considers EU law and why UK governments keep it at arms' length
Big Society lessons from youth justice
Rod Morgan reflects on the potential to scale back criminal system intervention
DEBATING: FAITH-BASED INTERVENTIONS
What place does faith have in the delivery of criminal justice?
Naomi Phillips, Philip Whitehead, Nic Groombridge and Claire Bonham give their opinions on whether faith based interventions are appropriate
IN FOCUS: MY STORY
My Story - witnessing narratives of childhood trauma and violence
Roger Grimshaw reports on new research from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
| [Previous] | [Next] |