Guest editorial
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-06-2016-0009 |
| Pages | 161-163 |
| Date | 19 September 2016 |
| Published date | 19 September 2016 |
| Author | Nicole L. Asquith,Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron,Karl Roberts |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Nicole L. Asquith, Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron and Karl Roberts
Nicole L. Asquith is an
Associate Professor of Policing
and Criminal Justice at the
School of Social Sciences and
Psychology, Western Sydney
University, Penrith, Australia.
Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron is a
Senior Lecturer at the School of
Social Sciences, University of
Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.
Karl Roberts is based at the
School of Social Sciences and
Psychology, Western Sydney
University, Penrith, Australia.
Vulnerability and the criminal justice system
Throughout the criminal justice process, practitioners are required to provide additional
assistance or support to victims and offenders (such as the provision of a translator or medical
care) to ensure equity and the just application of law. These types of responses are inevitably
framed in legislation and policy as “extraordinary”and “complex”, time intensive and costly, and
while well-meaning, fail to consider the significant ways in which vulnerability is institutionalised
and iatrogenic. Dealing with this victim’s disability or that offender’s language capacities misses
the core impediment to managing vulnerability in the criminal justice system. Existing approaches
assume the absence of vulnerabilities unless a criminal justice actor falls within a recognisable
category of “vulnerable”person. Recognisable (in law or in policy) vulnerable people vary
between jurisdictions, and correct identification of this vulnerability is wholly dependent upon
practitioners’willingness and capacity to assess victims’and offenders’individual pathology or
social membership.
Given that vulnerability in the criminal justicesystem is ubiquitous, it cannot be remediedby siloed,
individualisedresponses alone. These service enhancements may go some way to ensure equity
for those people fortune enough to be recognised as vulnerable (by way of their age, ethnicity or
acute mental illness). However, they fail to capture the intersections and layers of vulnerability of
those criminal justice actors who are less visible in the criminal justicesystem (such as those with
acquired brain injury) and those whose experiences are not legislatively mandated.
The criminal justice system amplifies vulnerability institutionally as it is wholly focused on
responding to crisis, emergencies and the possibility of social or physical death. It is a system
that coordinates the actions of vulnerable people and, in the process, (re)produces vulnerable
bodies. Existing siloed approaches do not account for this vulnerability created by the criminal
justice system. As well as the explicit iatrogenic harms generated by corporal and penal
punishment (such as mental illness), the systems of criminal justice also produce systemic harm
when criminal justice actors’vulnerability is not recognised, or is not recognised early enough in
the process for remedial action to be taken. Policing is at the front end of the criminal justice
system, and the actions and decisions of police in the first instance can inform the justice
encountered at later stages of the system. Policing produces vulnerabilities internal to the
policing process (such as the harms of over-policing) but also shapes the attendant downstream
vulnerabilities as victims and offenders traverse the legal and penal systems.
From across the criminal justice process, the contributors to this special edition highlight the
different vulnerabilities that arise for practitioners, suspects and offenders, and the
consequences of these experiences for policy and practice innovation. While increasing
attention is being paid to the vulnerabilities that arise in policing (see e.g. Bartkowiak-Théron and
Asquith, 2016), as front-end practitioners with powers to determine the criminal justice pathways
for victims and offenders, it is problematic that police officer vulnerability is so poorly understood.
In “Watching out for the watchers”, Corbo-Crehan and Absalom propose that the contexts of
police work warrants increased attention in relation to the iatrogenic vulnerabilities of policing.
In addition to the occupational and organisation harms encountered by police officers (such as
PTSD, or injury), Corbo-Crehan and Absalom identify that the vulnerabilities encountered during
active duty also extend, by law, to their personal and private laws. As with many other vocations,
police officers take their professional identity home with them, and this identity is often the
primary source of social support. However, unlike most other professions, police officers are
mandated to act even when off-duty, and their off-duty behaviour is highly regulated, including
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-06-2016-0009 VOL. 2 NO. 3 2016, pp.161-163, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
PAGE161
Guest editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial