ATTENTION
BEFORE
YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR 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
WHATSAPP
US ON 08137701720
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 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: 3139283609
Bank:
FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
https://projectmaterialsng.blogspot.com.ng/
https://foreasyprojectmaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://mypostumes.blogspot.com.ng/
https://myeasymaterials.blogspot.com.ng/
https://eazyprojectsmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/
https://easzprojectmaterial.blogspot.com.ng/
Comments
Post a Comment