ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
THE
COMPARATIVE METHOD IN GLOBALISED CRIMINOLOGY
Abstract
The aim of
this article is consider the current constitution, and likely future prospects,
of the field of criminology, and to examine in particular how it might be
becoming more global in nature. The term ‘criminology’ will be used broadly,
referring to the academic field as a whole, and hence including the study of
the causes of crime, responses to crime including criminal justice, as well as
to the field’s many sub-disciplines. The article begins by considering
international and comparative criminology, before reviewing previous work that
has raised the prospect of a ‘global criminology.’ The focus then shifts to
consideration of the question, ‘what is criminology?’, prompted in particular
by the various essays in Bosworth and Hoyle (eds) (2011). It is argued that
this question usefully draws attention to certain problems currently facing
Anglo-American criminology, and contends moreover that these issues are related
in certain respects to issues that will face criminology as it globalises.
Drawing from work by Wenger (1999) and others, a novel way of conceptualising
the field of criminology is proposed, namely as a group of ‘communities of
practice.’ The article shows how not only does this approach help model some of
the challenges facing Anglo- American criminology both domestically and
globally, but that it also suggests some practical measures that could be
undertaken to help overcome these problems.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background
to study
The context
and history of comparative criminology Comparative criminology is as old as
criminology itself. Beccaria, Bentham, Voltaire, Helvetius, Quetelet, and many
others of the 18th-century Enlightenment compared and contrasted their own
systems of justice with those of other nations. Their recommendations and
findings were often influential in bringing about change in countries other
than their own. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution owes some of its language and
ideas to the writings of these thinkers (see Granucci 1969; Schwartz 1971).
Yet, for most of the 19th century and much of the 20th century, comparative
criminology was neglected as nations looked inward for solutions to their
specific crime problems. It was not until the middle and late decades of the
20th century that interest again emerged in comparing and contrasting the
problems of crime across nations. There are many reasons for this renewed
interest. The most obvious is that the latter half of the 20th century saw the
world become a smaller place, a transformation initiated by revolutions in
communication, transportation, and information technology. At the close of the
20th century, nations are increasingly pressured to account for their actions,
and the activities of nations are transparent as never before.
One can
reasonably argue that transparency began in economic institutions, where trade
and commerce demanded it. But the availability of information about various
facets of national social life has flourished as well, some have argued,
because of an abiding concern with the health of democracy. Kenneth Prewitt,
current Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, has suggested, “A healthy democracy
needs a healthy number system, and anything that erodes that number system
undermines democracy” (American Sociological Association 1999, 3). Gradually,
countries have collected and made available to the international community
statistics on a wide range of subjects relevant to the interests of comparative
criminologists (see, for example, United Nations Development Programme 1998).
Among these data are statistics on crime and criminal justice, which have only
recently become widely accessible at the international level (Newman 1999).
Although nations formerly guarded information on crime and criminal justice
zealously, many nations now provide these data on the Internet, where they are
available to anyone with adequate technological resources. The transparency and
availability of such information have created a climate in which the promises
of comparative criminological research may be realistically pursued.
Although
many theoretical, methodological, and philosophical problems certainly have
dogged comparative criminology since its inception, there is little doubt that
this field of investigation is currently in a state of rapid expansion. While
this chapter outlines some of the main problems that confront comparative
criminology, the discussion also focuses on what cross-national research has
accomplished and what it can do for the field of criminology in the future. We
begin with two questions often asked of comparative criminology: What is the
comparative perspective, and why employ it? Following this discussion, we move
to a consideration of the substantive and theoretical issues that lie at the
root of comparative criminological inquiry. We must begin with theory, because
the plethora of databases and other information now available from many
countries provides an environment that tempts rash comparisons and sometimes
unsubstantiated conclusions based on what may be incomparable data. Faced with
such a challenge, theoretically informed research supported by sound
methodology is the wisest defense. Consequently, we look at the theoretical
perspectives that have been brought to bear in understanding crime from a
comparative perspective. Following this, we consider crime as a dependent
variable in comparative work, then stake out the methodological approaches that
are often used in this type of investigation. We then consider the data
available to researchers interested in pursuing comparative studies and
conclude with some observations about the future of comparative research in
criminology.
The impact
of globalization on crime and criminal justice is an important consideration
from the perspective of comparative research. One reason for this is the link
between globalisation and punitiveness, the main point of interest of
comparative criminology. Baker and Roberts (2005) point to the various reasons
why ‘new punitiveness’ is associated with globalisation. They argue, however,
that globalisation does not necessarily cause punitiveness, as it is not a
universal trend. Globalisation is a complex phenomenon, which has definitely
affected penal policies, privileging punitive responses and facilitating
‘policy transfer’, but it can as well ‘spark diverse, jurisdiction‐specific
responses’ (Baker and Roberts 2005: 122).
A further
reason is the fact that globalisation, of itself, presents specific challenges
to the credibility of nation states: as crime increasingly displays
international dimensions, it is becoming more and more difficult for nation
states to deal with it. Globalists claim that a global criminology instead of
comparative criminology is needed to understand what is happening in this field
(Larsen and Smandych in Nelken 2011).
Statement of
Problem
Comparative
criminologists have defended their discipline, pointing to differences between
countries due to local features, values and cultures. Further, it has been
argued that, for every global model explaining levels of punitiveness, there
are exceptions, as will be discussed later in this contribution. In addition,
there is at the same time the contradictory process of glocalisation: the
persistence of national and even regional autonomy in the face of global
pressures (Meyer and O’Malley 2005). Globalisation doesn’t spell convergence,
according to Lacey (2011); therefore, comparative research on national and
regional levels is crucial to understand the mechanisms by which master
narratives affect penal policy in different ways, in different countries.
Meaningful comparative research needs to move back and forth between the global
and the local, refining the global model with local empirical data and
findings, as features within individual countries might explain how and why
they deviate from the leading pattern. Along the same lines, Savelsberg (2011)
concludes that both the study of globalisation and cross‐national comparative
research are needed, and that they need to be closely linked, as global trends
are translated in a nation‐specific way and filtered through local institutions.
Nelken (2011) agrees with this view, pleading that comparative research is
particularly well placed to study the interaction between the global and local
forces and the ways how to best do this. Therefore, and according to these
authors, despite globalisation, comparative research still has a place within
criminology, identifying local dynamics and ways out of the doom scenario of
mass imprisonment (Lacey 2008). To
contribute to this existing body of literature is the major goal of this
research.
Objective of
the study
The aim of
this article is consider the current constitution, and likely future prospects,
of the field of criminology, and to examine in particular how it might be
becoming more global in nature. The term ‘criminology’ will be used broadly,
referring to the academic field as a whole, and hence including the study of
the causes of crime, responses to crime including criminal justice, as well as
to the field’s many subdisciplines.
Scope of the
study
The scope of
this article is focused on examining international and comparative criminology,
before reviewing previous work that has raised the prospect of a ‘global
criminology’.
Significance
of the study
In this
regard our significance of study will be both on the theoretical levels and
practical levels. Theoretically, this study seeks to highlight and widen
scholarly perceptions of criminology,practically, the study will be a response
to the intellectual challenges involved in the extent of the application of
comparative method in globalized criminology.Also this study will be of vital
importance to scholars on criminology, law and other researchers serving as a further take off point for future
inquiry in the study under review.
Research
methodology
The study is
more descriptive than analytical. An assessment the scope of global criminology
and the current state of comparative criminology carried out. The information
relied on for these works are sourced from secondary sources. In this
connection, journals on legal system among others serve as major secondary
source. The include-materials on the internet, books, essays, journals and
articles published on the subject matter
was also used together with the opinions of the courts in judicial decisions.
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment