Week 1

Lecture 1 reading notes:

Introducing criminal justice

components: police (protect), prosecution, judiciary (requirements met), prisons, probation,
parole (administer punishments to deter, reform, provide justice) (each has specific mandate
and profile of professionals but often conflict) all assisted by wide range of ancillary services
and professionals.
Society causes crime and creates offenders (no people to commit against, no laws to break)
Must respond to broken rules otherwise they lose potency to affect behaviour
Modern societies principles guide choice to criminalise specific acts (or failures to act)
Mill – conduct infringe nb social value before classified as offence
Most JS’ try restrict application to serious forms misconduct (ideally labelling crime enough)
Impose disincentive to offend (violate subject to prosecution and punishment) so need CJS
From police caution to execute necessary for range of acts & people & circumstances e.g.,
motives and hence level of culpability differs.
Objective of criminal justice: (victim not always focus) balance interest of victim, rights of
defendant, broader public interest, cost effectiveness
Distinction between punishment and prevention highlight potential conflicts
Punishment to reinforce individual mortality (reinforce), prevent crime (offender or tempted
individuals), rehabilitating offender, prevention through incapacitation.
Better to prevent than punish after the fact yet usually secondary as courts and prison
largest part of CJS (cannot just prevent through application of CJ – goes beyond CJS e.g.
mental health services, school programmes, community agencies)
Community based prevention programmes better value for volume crimes prevented (make
it harder to commit crimes)
Bank ‘target-hardening’ 90% decline in UK.
Internet crimes (follow opportunity- poorly regulated, immense profits)
Situational crime prevention:
-increasing effort for offenders to commit a crime (security, gun control etc.)
-increasing risks of detection (patrols, border searches, baggage screening)
-reduced rewards gained (bus. Lower cash/valuables held in facility)
Re-offending rates show CJS punishments often unsuccessful.
Key principles of CJ in Western nations: criminal prosecution as last resort meaning
legislature should only criminalize conduct sufficiently serious to justify criminal sanctions &
serious consequences for convicted offenders mean it should only occur when other
interventions inadequate (principal of penal restraint)
Determining level of State intervention & punishment, CJS should be guided by principal of
proportionality (severity increases as seriousness & nb of rule does)
Sometimes launched when no public interest (level of intervention exceeds necessary)
Models of CJ
Need operational model.
2 models of criminal justice: adversarial and inquisitorial.
Adversarial= 2 parties, state represented by prosecutor & individual against whom state has
laid criminal charge usually represented by lawyer
If accused deny charge trial held with judge only intervening if danger of injustice
Usually prevent knowledge of prior offences
More protections for litigants
Criticised for ignoring interests of victim
Inquisitorial model= investigating judge launches investigation and actively guides actions of
police in collecting evidence (identify & interview witnesses & conduct trial) e.g. France, Italy
Court will usually hear of prior offences as assume qualified will not be unduly influenced
Assumes judge will act appropriately
Victim plays greater role
Public perception (little confidence=less likely to cooperate)
More trust in police than prosecutors as familiarity and police seen as more aligned with
public interest than e.g. parole boards
People often don’t realise CJs limits to prevent crime otherwise would be totalitarian
(cannot listen to phone calls, cannot spring evidence on you etc) = due process protections
If evidence illegally procured can be thrown out
Balance
Too much discretion increases risk of discrimination & disparity of treatment yet too little
such as mandatory sentencing laws can be unjust as ignore circumstance.
Often lies outside scope of CJS e.g., alcohol related (better licensing, min pricing, awareness
education)
Crimes often not reported (sentence imposed on 3% of crimes) means what court does to
small number has little effect on overall crime rates.
Injustice: wrongful convictions, acquittals, over/under punishments, discrimination (econ
and social exclusion)

Criminology, punishment, and the state in a globalised society

Increasingly international (e.g., expanding body of European prison law and related
monitoring institutional arrangements)
Criminals not only citizens of given state.
Collaboration between states has been supportive (sharing objectives of crime reduction)
and critical (of punitive, oppressive nature class bias, democratic deficits)
Destabilising the national frame (idea of globalisation as new phenomenon and one out of
reach to community)
Local policing often transnationally fused
Methodological nationalism
Westphalian order (clear delineation between international & internal affairs of state &
adherence to as fundamental principle of modern world order)
Illicit Globalisation and state sovereignty

Lecture 1 notes: What is Global crime and global justice?

 Crime and punishment are usually a matter of sovereign states.
 Criminal justice systems are in place in every country to respond to crime and impose
punishment.
 There are challenges to this state model that have to do with transborder or global
issues. (Countries are usually sovereign and autonomous in deciding the appropriate
response, who will be included in the process)
 Explain the variety and impact of these challenges.
State sovereignty in criminal justice matters
 Jurisdiction: the principle of territoriality (if a crime is perpetrated on a territory of a
particular country, that country has the prerogative to act) territory as land and sea
specific distances + others
 Rationale: crime as the matter of community that has been wronged
 Actors: police, prosecution, court, execution of sanctions
 Presumption: ability to resolve the case (jurisdiction, evidence, witnesses, defendant)
 Problems inherent in the system already: ideal v. reality. Attrition rate due to lack of
evidence, resources etc. but can be problematic in some areas such as sexual assault)

Challenges posed by global crimes and global issues.

Country of origin, transit countries, destination country
If only punish person in 1 country when related to many as chain you are not actually
solving the issue.
Organisations such as UN and Interpol adopt suppression conventions which allow countries
to communicate directly and collaborate/cooperate with police orgs in other countries,
create networks to collaborate with other CJSs to make suppression of these crimes easier.
We must put in place international laws to ensure countries abide by these rules of
cooperation e.g. UNTOC (UN convention against transnational organised crime adopted at
start of 21st cent on basis we need common rules on issues of organised crime, ratified by
various countries)
 They require collaboration of multiple states in finding out about crimes and in
achieving repression.
 They require common rules/agreements on jurisdiction, mutual legal assistance,
extradition.
 They require coming up with new instruments to tackle problems (environmental
crimes)
 They involve crimes on a large scale for which usual instruments are not enough –
transitional justice for instance.
 They require using the same legislation (supranational legal instruments) not
necessarily exactly the same laws but a unification and harmonising of laws
 They require supranational institutions (police; prosecution; courts)
 They involve subjects over which repressive measures are used but who are not
criminals.
 They involve other actors (non-state)
 They assume similarity of tools/models which might not be warranted.
 Limited ability to control the causes of global crime, yet a need to respond to it.
 Besides people in charge who profit others involved tend to be socio-economically
disadvantaged such as victims of war

Revision Questions
• In what ways is the state model of dealing with crime badly equipped to handle
challenges posed by global crimes? Can eradicate certain instances of crime but the
conditions and factors that lead to these crimes are far more difficult to eradicate.
• What do you think are the crucial problems which might undermine the ability of
countries to collaborate in crime suppression? Collaboration is not natural and cannot
happen without these legal provisions in place.
• Could we reasonably expect that the challenges posed by global/transnational issues
will become more pronounced in the future, and if so, why? E.g., pandemic

Lecture 2 notes: Beyond (which) border?

 That border sometimes means physical border but sometimes it does not.
 The framework of thinking about global crime and justice that consists in four areas.
 The fluid way of learning and thinking about global crime and justice and a central
running thread.

Beyond national borders

• Crimes that really cross borders (trafficking, corruption between 2 countries or actors,
anything moves across border, physical)
• Criminals that really cross borders (organized crime, terrorism)
• Crimes that take place in the virtual sphere (cybercrime)
• Crimes that take place outside any borders (piracy) physical lines of territory, beyond
borders e.g., international waters
• Crimes that have effects in multiple states (environmental crimes, international
crimes)

Beyond conventional crime suppression, actors, and methods

• The idea of ‘global governance’ and ‘global prohibition regimes’ hard to get countries
to adopt same laws.
• Global institutions: United Nations; police (Interpol, Europol); courts (International
Criminal Court, tribunals) make cooperation easier. Limited as not primary. Training.
• Global legal instruments: conventions and resolutions
• Policing that crosses borders (drug enforcement by the US)
• Transitional justice mechanisms
• NGOs (Amnesty international)
• Private actors (regulatory agencies, banks)

Beyond conventional subjects of crime control and punishment

• Migrants, asylum seekers (regulation of people treated as offenders but not deterred
used such as detention, deportation, justified as threats to security)
• Domestic citizens (de-nationalisation)
• Those far removed from crime perpetration.

Beyond conventional knowledge and ideas

• Criminological theory as focused on nation state.
• Criminological theory as focused on individual crime that occurs during peace.
• ‘Global’ as distinct from ‘local’
• But is it global? The idea of ‘glocalization’
• Is it new?
• Knowledge production and consumption in other parts of the world – presumptions
and prejudices about universality

How to approach the study of global crime and justice?

• No system, no linearity
• Understanding the complexity of problems, approaches, and possible solutions
• A collection (and selection) of topics
• Moving away from the presumption that criminal law is solution to all.
• The links between various phenomena (corruption/trafficking/terrorism)

Revision questions
• Is there a central feature of the course that runs through different topics that we will
explore (have a look at the schedule of lectures when you think about it)?
• If someone were to ask you to explain what Global crime and justice was – in one
sentence – what would you say?
• Are global and local distinct? Or do they mix and if so, in what ways?