Crime, Criminology and Public Policy

DOI10.1177/00048658950280S101
Date01 December 1995
Published date01 December 1995
Subject MatterArticle
Crime, Criminology and Public Policy
Da
vid
Dixon’
This supplementary special issue of the Journal comprises the
1994
John
Barry
Memorial Lecture at the University of Melbourne, three presentations
from a public symposium sponsored by the University of New South Wales
which was included in the program of the Tenth Annual Conference of the
Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, and an additional
comparative paper, along with comments on each. They are collectively
presented here under the conference title, ‘Crime, Criminology, and Public
Policy’. This theme was chosen in an attempt to promote understanding of the
links between theory, empirical research and public policy development.
The last thematic issue of the journal, ‘The Lure of Relevance’, examined
some of ‘the problems and dilemmas
of
praxis’ in criminology (Laster
1994:3).
No apology is made for returning
so
quickly to some of the same
themes. Policy in this region’s criminal justice is increasingly prey to law and
order politics. Debate continues to be dominated by rhetoric rather than
analysis; by ‘common sense’ rather than theory or principle; by anecdote and
the citation of individual instances rather than research (Brown
&
Hogg
1992).
The Australian version of law and order politics sometimes has a
particular complexion: in contrast to the ideological commitment found
elsewhere, cynicism and the search for short term political advantage appear
to dominate here. A prime example of this tendency is provided by the
squabble during the New South Wales
1995
state election over who would be
toughest on crime, which led to the current Government’s plans to introduce
mandatory lifetime incarceration for certain offences. Some politicians play
on community fears about crime, then disingenuously consult public opinion,
before cynically promoting laws which will appease ‘the public’.
This approach treats criminal justice policy as (despite the controversies
which often surround it) essentially straightforward, a realm of ‘common
sense’ and public opinion, not of contested knowledge and principles. In this
climate, it is hardly surprising that criminologists usually find their messages
ignored. More important than specific policy changes, it is this climate which
needs to
be
changed. Criminal justice should
be
treated as an important area
of public administration, not merely as a way of attracting cheap votes. If
public policy is to be properly developed, it should be founded on theory,
principles, and empirical research.
It is true that this may well be an unrealistic ideal. On one hand, politics is
always going to be about more (or less) than rational policy-making. It is
wrong to privilege the role of ‘expertise’. Debate about crime should be
wide-ranging and inclusive; but it has to be informed, and this places a special
responsibility on politicians to take crime seriously and to look beyond
short-term political advantage.
On the other hand, criminology can rarely offer the unqualified answers
which policy-makers demand: our expert advice is all too often tentative and
*
Associate
Professor,
Faculty
of
Law,
University
of
New
South
Wales, Sydney,
2052.
1
at SAGE Publications on June 20, 2016anj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT