This briefing by David Ellis and David Whyte is the second of two briefings the Centre has published on public attitudes to questionable conduct by the state, corporations and individuals.
Corrupt companies should face a corporate ‘death penalty’, corporate probation or public shaming, a new report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies proposes today. The report – Redefining Criminality – by Dr David Ellis and Professor David Whyte of the University of Liverpool, reveals that the public consider the crimes of the powerful to be as serious as, or worse than, everyday crimes such as handling stolen goods or joy riding.
Here's a selection of the best stuff we've read this month written by academics:
An entire virtual issue of the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice on the theme of 'Crimes of the powerful', featuring articles by Steve Tombs and David Whyte.
In this summary piece based on her 2012 Eve Saville Lecture, Professor Pat Carlen argues that rehabilitation programmes have tended to be reserved for poorer lawbreakers. White collar and corporate lawbreakers, by contrast, tend not to be subject to the same level of prosecution or supervision.
Victims of the Farepak collapse are demanding compensation, better regulation and for key figures in Farepak to be held to account for their actions. Some 150,000 savers lost an estimated £50 million when the Christmas hamper scheme collapsed in October 2006.
The research, carried out by Dr Basia Spalek and Sam King of the University of Birmingham, also finds that many of the savers were low paid women prudently saving for Christmas who have been forced into a cycle of debt as result. The research was commissioned by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and UNISON Welfare.
Criminal obsessions is an innovative, groundbreaking critique of conventional criminological approaches to social issues. The contributors show how social harm relates to social and economic inequalities that are at the heart of the liberal state. This second edition of Criminal obsessions includes an additional essay by Simon Pemberton in which he develops theoretically the concept of social harm and discusses the future of the social harm perspective.