Vol. 21 No. 7 (July, 2011) pp.426-429
CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY IN CANADA, by Aaron Doyle and Dawn Moore (ed).
Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press, 2011. 336pp. Hardcover.
CDN$90.00/US$99.00. ISBN: 9780774818346
Paperback. CDN$34.95/US$37.95. ISBN: 9780774818353.
Reviewed by Caryl Segal,
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Texas at
Arlington. Email: csegal [at] uta.edu.
Unlike in the United States, criminology is a very popular undergraduate major
in Canada. Government job
opportunities are limited in both countries because of fiscal constraints and,
in some cases, political party affiliation. The Canadian Conservative government
is not open to any expertise that does not support the law and order agenda it
espouses, which has also served to close the potential employment door for many.
In spite of falling crime rates, and its own research showing that mandatory
minimums are counterproductive and cost ineffective, the Canadian Conservative
government will not consider revisions from its stated agenda, according to the
introductory material in CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY IN CANADA, edited by Aaron Doyle
and Dawn Moore. This has negative impacts upon researchers, especial those in
critical criminology.
The various authors contributing to this anthology can be grouped into six areas
of expertise that range from the future of “critical criminology” to the role of
criminologists in politics and criminal justice policy in Canada. The editors
decry the lack of places to publicize their findings, which are often
contradictory to governmental policy. They also claim that this results in
public ignorance.
When asked to approve bonds to build more prisons or spend money in other
criminal justice areas, public voting is rarely based on a study of the facts.
The authors note that blogs and wikis are opening areas for a different form of
news-making criminology, but whether they are being fully or even partially
utilized to publicize critical criminology theory is not mentioned. Major
failings of the book include the many statements made without explaining the
basis for the statement, and no references are provided for further information.
In addition, Doyle and Moore embrace the premise that American criminology has
been compromised by its alignment with the criminal justice system; however,
little explanation is given as to the basis of this belief or its rationale. Nor
do they explain what they actually mean by compromised and how this is a
negative.
The editors employ a broad definition of critical criminology that includes an
academic study of “crime,” as well as the “social and governmental reactions to
it” (p.3). They point out that critical criminology has primarily defined itself
in terms of what it is not, in contrast to mainstream criminological theory.
Michel Foucault’s strong influence is recognized, along with his belief that
criminology was, and to a degree still is, a fundamental tool portraying
repression and punishment. Some authors see the [*427] “Foucault effect” as
interfering with feminist activist spirit and lacking in a political agenda.
Historically the Canadian civil service and its research branch has tended to
serve as moderating influences on Canadian crime policies, unlike the United
States where “strong on law and order” is a political necessity, and “if it
bleeds, it leads” is attributed to the media, according to works by Barak and
others. This results in the American social tendency to individualize crime. In
the United States, feminine and African American criminology scholarship has
often been marginalized, but not to the degree that French Canadian authors
suffer if they do not forsake their native language and publish in English.
The French Canadians must also overcome bias that lessens the value of the Civil
justice system, as opposed to the Anglicized common law. “Anglo-Canadian and
French Canadian criminologies have developed in different directions and at
different paces” (p.31). Critical criminology, the authors explain, needs to
decide whether its object of study should be crime or the process of
criminalization. The discipline must address its stand on issues such as the
restorative justice movement. Thus, one reads about a multitude of areas where
critical criminologists are still divided, and
this is especially true in academia.
Academics must additionally contend with student evaluations. The students
downplay the importance of theory, if not ignore it entirely, by a desire for
“practical” training. This is especially difficult for new tenure-track faculty
who have just completed years of theoretical study.
The authors explain how they use practical examples of the various
theories to assist in student retention and understanding of the material.
Student attendance increases if there is a perception that practical material
will be taught.
Faculty have an added pressure that results from the common recruitment focus on
the availability of jobs in the criminal justice field. The authors point out
that in reality there are not nearly enough job opportunities for the multitude
of graduating students. Many students have been led to believe that the piece of
paper which represents a degree or certification is an assured job opener.
Additionally students are anticipating higher pay than what they will be offered
when they go into the marketplace and seek employment.
Most of the employment openings are actually in private sector security
positions with fewer benefits than government jobs provide. Obviously, there is
little need for heavy theoretical learning in these jobs; however, critical
thinking skills will, or should, prove useful. Critical thinking means thinking
for oneself, according to the authors. Critical analysis will also be utilized
in security positions, in addition to all areas of criminal justice –
corrections, policing, and the courts.
Critical criminology recognizes that there are major gender differences in the
experiences of both victims and offenders. An under-studied area of research
involves the economic and social problems faced by the families of incarcerated
individuals. It is mentioned that Canada allows private family visits, [*428]
including conjugal opportunities, unlike most of the prisons in the United
States. Conjugal visits are allowed in six American states but in no federal
facilities.
The economic impact upon the female partners of incarcerated males is
exceptionally severe. Many of these women have never been employed and have few,
if any, marketable skills and are thus relegated to low paying entry-level work
or domestic jobs with few or any benefits.
Because prisons are located away from urban areas, for the most part, going to
visit is not only expensive but very time-consuming. Mention is made of the
degrading conditions imposed upon visitors by uncaring guards. Prisoners who
wish to talk to a loved one by telephone are required to call collect, which can
be quite costly.
Canada’s correctional system allows for private family visiting programs, where
the family can spend up to 72 hours in a small cottage or trailer on the prison
grounds. Children get the opportunity to bond with the incarcerated parent, and
cooking their own meals and eating together simulates a normal family life, if
only for a short period of time. But, there is a high price to be paid.
Groceries must be purchased from approved grocery stores and delivered by the
store directly to the prison, which can be very costly. Needed condiments such
as salt must be left behind in the trailer or be thrown away.
The families of the incarcerated are a marginalized population. Foucault has
stated that a hallmark of a marginalized population is “the subordination of its
well being for the convenience and security of the majority” (p.201). Research
opportunities abound for critical criminologists in studies about the collateral
effects of incarceration upon family members. The authors discuss the stigma
that attaches to these family members, adults and children alike, who have never
done anything illegal and yet are looked down upon by virtue of having an
incarcerated relative or spouse.
“Collateral punishment” is the term used when discussing the women and children
related to the incarcerated male.
Incarceration has a profoundly negative effect on the family’s quality of life,
and the authors lament that few social services are available to assist these
family members. Little thought or consideration is given to the family when
“lock ‘em up and throw away the key” can be heard from candidates for office.
Neither the public nor the government acknowledges the financial impact upon the
families as an area of social responsibility that should be addressed.
Although feminine criminology is out of the mainstream theory in Canada, there
is a growing body of research and publication in the field. Female students
outnumber males in the discipline, and courses on women and the law have grown
proportionately. Feminist thought does not have the same degree of public
legitimacy as it has in academia however.
The final chapter of the book discusses the manner in which conservative and
liberal criminology approach policing, corrections, and sentencing.
Anarcho-abolist theory is related to peacemaking [*429] criminology. The basic
idea appears to be that those who practice anarcho-abolist theory are in reality
fighting against the prison-industrial complex. The theorists call for
alternatives with emphasis on a reduction of profiling and automatic
incarceration. The aims come across as more idealistic than realistic at the
current time and in the climate of a Canadian conservative federal government.
*********************
© Copyright 2011 by the author, Caryl Segal.