Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2006. / Advisor: Theodore Chiricos, Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed June 7, 2006). Document formatted into pages; contains ix, 152 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M. Soc. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 78-82).

Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 78-82) Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A.)--Victoria University of Wellington, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (B.Psy.Sc.(Hons.)) - University of Queensland, 2006. / Includes bibliography.

Thesis (M.A.) - Simon Fraser University, 2005. / Theses (School of Criminology) / Simon Fraser University. Also issued in digital format and available on the World Wide Web.

In late 20th-century Texas, during decades of rapid economic growth and abrupt social transformation, traditional state institutions and other features of a less affluent Southern past persisted side by side with the modern and newly developed. Criminal justice, in Texas as in other states, became a realm that was fiercely contested politically and in the courts. Sentencing and corrections, in particular, bore the brunt of changes promoted by the frequently conflicting forces of federal grant aid to states and federal judicial intervention. In the case of Texas, comprehensive reforms ordered by federal courts became a crucial, if limited, impetus for change that challenged the resistance of the political establishment. The courts typically sought to compel state institutions to meet standards of service provision set by professional experts and certifying organizations. The lead role played by federal courts--rather than Texas professionals themselves and their statewide organizations--in advocating for reforms indicates that in a state political environment marked by a tendency toward concentrated power, and with few independent, politically insulated institutions of their own, Texas doctors, lawyers, academics, and other professionals had few active roles to play. As examples of courtordered reform, the cases of prison medical care and juvenile confinement both display the chronic abasement of professional standards by state institutions, the limits of effective judicial intervention over time, and the long-term cyclical patterns of state politics. Other episodes of attempted reform--the use of federal grant funds originally intended to upgrade criminal justice agencies, and a succession of initiatives to change the criminal sentencing code--demonstrate the prevalence of political pressures over state-supported professional expertise. The particular importance of physicians--and the absence of state medical organizations--in promoting the revival of a modernized death penalty is emphasized by a comparison with England, where doctors asserted a professional interest in criminal justice policies and preempted the medicalization of capital punishment. Ultimately the fate of each of these initiatives in the realm of sentencing and correction reflects the pressures tending against the creation and maintenance of independent professional authority in Texas.

No description available.

This thesis examines in detail the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which allow for the incapacitation of the 'dangerous' offender. Incapacitation has been used as an example of a growing trend in criminal justice towards viewing crime in terms of risk. This risk discourse points to the use of actuarial practices and insurance techniques in this field, with a resultant 'abstraction' of the traditional view of crime as a moral wrong. The technologies of risk assessment are central to the very power of the discourse, it has been argued that these techniques further increase the effectiveness of control and that they are a response to a growing preoccupation in society with security. It is argued that risk is, in a sense, pre-political in that as risk takes hold, overtly political responses to crime become more difficult. Given that incapacitation has been used as an example of crime as risk, this thesis takes the form of a micro-study of the above incapacitatory legislation. It assesses the degree to which this legislation can be seen to be a part of the risk discourse. It is argued that on a general level the legislation does fit within the risk model, seeking to incapacitate 'bad risks'. However, it is argued that as the legislation has been conceived, formulated and employed, it does not make use of the actuarial techniques of risk assessment - seen as so central to 'internal dynamic' of the risk discourse - to a significant extent. Rather, it is argued that the legislation embodies a politically motivated appeal to the idea of risk rather than to risk assessment itself. It is concluded that this use of risk - once shed of its attendant technologies - far from making political responses more difficult, sits well with punitive responses demanded by a government of the right.

In this study I tackle the problem of justifying criminal punishment. Although I take heed of a traditional line of theorizing which says that punishment is an expressive and communicative endeavour, my theory breaks away from traditional approaches. This break is motivated by a recognition that theorists working in the traditional framework have failed to resolve the tension between retributivist and consequentialist reasons for punishment. I argue that punishment is justified as a type of communication from those affected by the crime to distinct and varied audiences. My naturalistic theory is structured around two fundamental themes, naturalism and pluralism about aims. The naturalism consists in the fact that the theory takes an empirically informed descriptive approach to the problem of justifying punishment. This foundation provides the resources for developing a balanced view of the moral agent which takes into account not only cognitive but also emotional capacities. This broader, deeper view of agency permits, indeed calls for, an analysis of the moral psychologies of those involved in the social practice. That analysis leads to the explanation that punishment is a type of communication of, among other things, strong but justified moral sentiments. Further development of this view suggests that punishment's various messages are intended for a variety of audiences - not just the wrongdoer but also the victim and community. That explication supports my other fundamental theme, pluralism about aims. The social institution of punishment is a complex one involving stakeholders who have differing motives and needs. Consequently, we should reject strategies which claim that punishment's justification can be reduced to one reason such as, for example, that the criminal deserves it. I argue that punishment's justification is multifaceted and complex. The arguments I put forward to justify punishment also bring to light aspects of the existing social institution that need reform. In general, they point to the need to design penal measures that promote communication among wrongdoer, victim and community. But I also call for a specific reform. I argue that the victim, whose concerns have traditionally been disregarded, should also be given a voice within the social institution.