Defending probation: Beyond privatisation and security

Fitzgibbon, Wendy; Lea, John

doi:10.1177/2066220314523226

Cited by 31 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There has also been interest in the privatisation of policing (South, 1988;Johnston, 1992;Prenzler, 2004;Wakefield and Button, 2014) and punishment (James et al, 1997;Sarre, 2001;Mehigan and Rowe, 2007;Shefer and Liebling, 2008;Genders, 2013;Fitzgibbon and Lea, 2014;Ludlow, 2014Ludlow, , 2015. However, interest in the privatisation of punishment has tended to focus upon those areas of the state in which direct government policy has led to a transfer of function from the public to the private or voluntary sector, most commonly in relation to prisons, prisoner escort, custody suites and probation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confronting the “fraud bottleneck”: private sanctions for fraud and their implications for justice

Button

Wakefield

Brooks

et al. 2015

Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose\ud \ud – The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the ways in which contemporary organisations are imposing their own private sanctions on fraudsters. \ud \ud \ud \ud \ud Design/methodology/approach\ud \ud – The research draws on primary data from interviews with counter fraud practitioners in the UK, secondary sources and case examples. \ud \ud \ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud – Such developments have been stimulated, at least in part, by the broader limitations of the criminal justice system and in particular a “fraud bottleneck”. Alongside criminal sanctions, many examples are provided of organisations employing private prosecutions innovative forms of civil sanction and “pseudo state” sanctions, most commonly civil penalties comparable to fines. \ud \ud \ud \ud \ud Research limitations/implications\ud \ud – Such changes could mark the beginning of the “rebirth of private prosecution” and the further expansion of private punishment. Growing private involvement in state sanctions and the development of private sanctions represents a risk to traditional guarantees of justice. There are differences in which comparable frauds are dealt with by corporate bodies and thus considerable inconsistency in sanctions imposed. In contrast with criminal justice measures, there is no rehabilitative element to private sanctions. More research is needed to assess the extent of such measures, and establish what is happening, the wider social implications, and whether greater state regulation is needed. \ud \ud \ud \ud \ud Practical implications\ud \ud – Private sanctions for fraud are likely to continue to grow, as organisations pursue their own measures rather than relying on increasingly over-stretched criminal justice systems. Their emergence, extent and implications are not fully understood by researchers and therefore need much more research, consideration and debate. These private measures need to be more actively recognised by criminal justice policy-makers and analysts alongside the already substantial formal involvement of the private sector in punishment through prisons, electronic tagging and probation, for example. Such measures lack the checks and balances, and greater degree of consistency as laid out in sentencing guidelines, of the criminal justice system. In light of this, consideration needs to be given to greater state regulation of private sanctions for fraud. More also needs to be done to help fraudsters suffering problems such as debt or addiction to rebuild their lives. There is a strong case for measures beyond the criminal justice system to support such fraudsters to be created and publicly promoted. \ud \ud \ud \ud \ud Originality/value\ud \ud – The findings are of relevance to criminal justice policy-makers, academics and counter fraud practitioners in the public and private sectors

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confronting the “fraud bottleneck”: private sanctions for fraud and their implications for justice

Button

Wakefield

Brooks

et al. 2015

Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fitzgibbon and Lea (2014) argue that technologies such as biometric kiosks are valued highly by the security industry and the private nature of CRCs is likely to signal the introduction of yet more technologies of this kind by organisations who are already struggling to make a profit (National Audit Office 2016;Plimmer 2016). Now that CRCs and NPS offices are increasingly located in separate locations, communication channels between the two organisations become more important, yet it is likely that such communication is going to be mediated increasingly by communication technologies, particularly email.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probation practice in the information age

Phillips

2017

Probation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the implications of the greater use of technology and information in probation practice. Using data generated via an ethnography of probation, the article firstly argues that probation in England and Wales now exists in what scholars would identify as 'the information age' (i.e. that computers and other technologies work to define and create probation practice as we know it). The article goes on to use actor-network theory to analyse two 'heterogeneous networks' to explore the way in which probation practitioners and the technologies they use interact to create particular forms of practice. The article argues that unless we understand the technology that underpins practice we cannot fully understand practice. Finally, the article considers the implications of this analysis for probation post-Transforming Rehabilitation (TR).

show abstract

Section: For and Against Privatizing Corrections: The Role Of Ideologmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fitzgibbon and Lea () also raised concerns about the privatization of probation. Allowing privatization to absorb probation, they contended, is akin to the general task of “public protection”—by which the “public” is no more than the asset‐rich middle class and those still in secure employment—by neutralizing the risk of crime and antisocial behavior from the poor and unemployed: “Those recalcitrant to workfare will end up being effectively warehoused out of sight, somewhere along the ‘seamless’ continuum of prison and probation” (Fitzgibbon & Lea, , p. 26; see also Wacquant, ; Worrall, ). Indeed, as Aviram (, p. 433) suggested, a “privatization mentality” has become legitimated and much more pervasive and intrusive, “to the point that it is no longer easy, or sensible, to draw firm distinctions between private and public prisons.” What this indicates is an interest toward a particularly predominant penal sensibility, one that ingrains itself into penal systems and cultures and is successful at least by analogy with an evolutionary process of speciation (it adapts and survives), whether or not it is also successful on a strictly penological evaluation.…”

Section: For and Against Privatizing Corrections: The Role Of Ideologmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent puzzles

Sparks

Gacek

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary:In our article, we attend to the implied outlooks ("philosophies" in the sense of operative practical discourses and assumptions) and the competing ethical concerns that animate differing views on privatizing corrections. We consider some normative arguments and empirical observations that have been mobilized for and against privatization since the inception of the modern version of this debate in the late 1980s, and we seek to place these in the context of accounts of penal problems over that contentious period. We argue that a multidimensional approach to understanding the sociology of punishment and in particular how certain forms of punishment persist, survive, and thrive is required when considering the privatization of corrections. In using such an approach, we raise quizzical questions regarding the pairing together of punishment and privatization, and as a result, we seek to sharpen the discussion about future prospects.Policy Implications: Greater attention must be paid toward public involvement, knowledge, and understanding about penal policies. With particular regard to the involvement of private-sector actors and interests, this has implications both at the initial contract negotiation stages of expanding correctional privatization as well as at the rescission of such contracts. The impact of penal arrangements on the dignity and integrity of offenders-especially but not

show abstract

Defending probation: Beyond privatisation and security

Cited by 31 publications

References 41 publications

Confronting the “fraud bottleneck”: private sanctions for fraud and their implications for justice

Confronting the “fraud bottleneck”: private sanctions for fraud and their implications for justice

Probation practice in the information age

Persistent puzzles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About