Populism and criminal justice policy: An Australian case study of non-punitive responses to alcohol-related violence
| Author | Julia Quilter |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865813519656 |
| Published date | 01 March 2015 |
| Date | 01 March 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2015, Vol. 48(1) 24â52
!The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865813519656
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Populism and criminal justice
policy: An Australian case study
of non-punitive responses
to alcohol-related violence
Julia Quilter
University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
Populism is widely regarded in the literature as a negative and inherently punitive influence on
criminal justice policy. This article challenges this view and highlights the ways in which
populism can produce forms of citizen engagement in the criminal justice context that are
new and progressive. These possibilities are illustrated through a close analysis of the
responses to a single instance of ârandomâ fatal violence: the killing of Thomas Kelly in
Kingâs Cross, Sydney, in 2012. This case study shows how a populist campaign powerfully
realigned political allegiances to call for, and achieve, real and enduring action from the
New South Wales Government in addressing alcohol-related violence.
Keywords
Alcohol, crime, populism, reform, violence
Introduction
This article is written against the well-documented background of declining citizen par-
ticipation in traditional and organised forms of democracy (from political parties to the
trade union movement) (Stoker, 2006) including in Australia (Alexander, 2013; Koziol,
2013), together with the general decline in trust in politicians, existing political processes
and the legitimacy of professional judgement including the judiciary and expert opinion
(Allen & Hough, 2008; Pratt, 2008; Stoker, 2006). Against this background this article
aims to explore how citizens engage politically in new and progressive ways, particularly
in the criminal justice context. In doing so, I take as a starting point the most signiïŹcant
inïŹuence on contemporary criminal justice policy, âpenal populismâ. Most scholars ana-
lysing penal populism are generally critical of it â and, given the alarming explosion in
prison populations across Western countries, for good reason. Critics of penal populism
focus on its emotive and rhetorical style, arguing that these should be eschewed in favour
of a more rational crime policy debate (Roberts & Stalans, 1997) to be held in alternative
Corresponding author:
Julia Quilter, School of Law, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522,
Australia.
Email: jquilter@uow.edu.au
forums away from tabloid journalism and electoral politics (Hutton, 2008). A central
goal is to better inform the public about criminal justice issues and a typical strategy is to
criticise the media for distorting the facts and presenting stories in an unbalanced way.
Such goals and strategies may well be worthy ones, however, against this grain, I am
interested to explore how âpopulismâ might be constructively engaged rather than ban-
ished, and decoupled from its punitive âpenalâ partner (Hogg, 2013). In doing so, to be
clear, my own normative position is opposed to the punitive âlaw and orderâ responses
generated by penal populism and to the conservative right-wing agendas of recent popu-
list movements such as Pauline Hansonâs One Nation Party in Australia or the Tea Party
in the US. That said, by drawing on the work of scholars such as Canovan (1981, 1999,
2005), Kazin (1998) and Laclau (2007), my argument is that populism does not have a
pre-ordained ideological content but may be viewed as a set of tools that can be put to
use in a systematic way. In particular, I am interested in the potentially progressive and
non-punitive role the emotions, rhetoric and the media may play in a populist campaign
in order to inïŹuence criminal justice policy. I analyse these issues through a close reading
of the responses to the death of Thomas Kelly, in Sydney, Australia in July 2012. Mr
Kellyâs tragic death resonated with the community at large triggering a powerful popu-
list campaign of a very diïŹerent non-punitive nature. Mr Kelly became a âpopular iden-
tityâ unifying a series of otherwise diïŹerential claims (Laclau, 2007), voices, interests and
organisations and powerfully realigning political allegiances â notably those of the police
with emergency service workers and away from âlaw and orderâ politics â in a campaign
directed at alcohol-related violence. Through âThomas Kellyâ this campaign called for
(and obtained) real and enduring action from the New South Wales (NSW)
Government. My rationale for a case study examination of a speciïŹc local campaign
is that much can be learned about populismâs potential to inform constructive policy
making from a close examination of the dynamics, nuance and speciïŹcity of a particular
campaign, and that the insights that are made possible from a close reading of this
instance have wider relevance and application.
This article is in three parts. The ïŹrst part discusses penal populism and its critiques
before turning to the structural features of populist movements generally. The second
part of the article turns to the Thomas Kelly case study and provides an overview of the
Governmentâs responses to his death. The ïŹnal part of the article, explores the populist
campaign that underpinned the âcall to actionâ to the Government.
Penal populism and populism
While the social, economic and cultural conditions of possibility of penal populism are
beyond the scope of this article (e.g. Dzur, 2010; Garland, 2000, 2001; Pratt, 2007, 2008;
Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur, & Hough, 2003), it is arguably the most signiïŹcant inïŹu-
ence on contemporary criminal justice policy in modern society (Pratt, 2007; cf. Pratt &
Eriksson, 2013). It is âintended to convey the notion of politicians tapping into and using
for their own purposes, what they believe to be the publicâs generally punitive stanceâ
(Bottoms, 1995, p. 40). As such, penal populism is most commonly associated with the
trend in many Western countries (US, UK, NZ and Australia) since the 1980s towards
punitive and populist penal policies and sentencing laws (Garland, 2001; Lacey, 2008;
Pratt, 2007; Roberts et al., 2003). Penal populism equates eïŹective punishment with
Quilter 25
To continue reading
Request your trial