Although criminal justice systems vary greatly around the world, one theme has emerged in all western jurisdictions in recent years: a rise in both the rhetoric and practice of severe punishment at a time when public opinion has played a pivotal role in sentencing policy and reforms. Despite the differences among jurisdictions, startling commonalities exist among the five countries-the U.K., USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand--surveyed here. Drawing on the results of representative opinion surveys and other research tools the authors map public attitudes towards crime and punishment across countries and explore the congruence between public views and actual policies. Co-authored by four distinguished sentencing policy experts, Penal Populism and Public Opinion is a clarion call for limiting the influence of penal populism and instituting more informed, research- based sentencing policies across the western world.

Following the USA, in many Western countries over the last decade, prison rates have increased while crime rates have declined. This key book examines the role played by penal populism on this and other trends in contemporary penal policy.

Public outcries and political platforms based on misinformation and misconceptions about the criminal justice system and current sentencing practice occur all too often in democratic societies. Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy attempts to address this problem by bringing together important contributions from a number of distinguished experts in the field. Penal Populism presents theoretical perspectives on the role of the public in the development of sentencing policy. It places particular emphasis on the emerging role of sentencing commissions, advisory councils or panels in a number of English speaking countries: Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Scotland and South Africa. The book explains, expands and develops the existing literature that looks at public attitudes to justice and the role that the 'public' can play in influencing policy. Written in a scholarly yet accessible style, Penal Populism asks the critical questions: should 'public opinion', or preferably, 'public judgment' be relevant to court decision-making, to institutional decision-making and to the political process? And if so, how?

This title examines the role of political culture and penal populism in the response to the emotive subject of child-on-child homicide. Green explores the reasons underlying the vastly differing responses of the English and Norwegian criminal justice systems to the cases of James Bulger and Silje Redergard respectively. Whereas James Bulger's killers were subject to extreme press and public hostility, and held in secure detention for nine months before being tried in an adversarial court, and served eight years in custody, a Redergard's killers were shielded from public antagonism and carefully reintegrated into the local community. This book argues that English adversarial political culture creates far more incentives to politicize high-profile crimes than Norwegian consensus political culture. Drawing on a wealth of empirical research, Green suggests that the tendency for politicians to justify punitive responses to crime by invoking harsh political attitudes is based upon a flawed understanding of public opinion. In a compelling study, Green proposes a more deliberative response to crime is possible by making English culture less adversarial and by making informed public judgment more assessable.

To honour the extraordinary contribution of Professor Anthony Edward Bottoms to criminology and criminal justice, leading criminologists and penal scholars have been asked to contribute original essays on the wide range of areas in which he has written. The book starts by reflecting on the depth and breadth of Anthony's contribution and his melding of perspectives from moral philosophy, social theory, empirical social science research, and criminal justice. This is no ordinary collection, because it also contains a major essay by Anthony Bottoms, on Criminology and 'positive morality', reflecting on social order and social norms. In similar vein, Jonathan Jacobs approaches criminology from a moral philosophical viewpoint, whilst Ian Loader and Richard Sparks ponder social theory and contemporary criminology. Topically, Peter Neyroud reflects on evidence-based practice and the process of trying to do experiments in relation to policing. In the second section of the book on Crime, Justice, and Communities, Loraine Gelsthorpe reminds us that justice is about people, in considering the treatment of women in community justice. Joanna Shapland draws parallels between the process of desistance from crime and the potential role of restorative justice in affecting offenders' journeys. P.-O. Wikstrom reflects on the social ecology of crime, whilst Antje Du Bois Pedain considers the theoretical and practical challenges of sentencing constructively. Finally, the book turns to Anthony Bottoms' major interest in punishment and penal order. David Garland puts penal populism under the microscope, whilst Alison Liebling explores the empirical evidence for theories of penal legitimacy. Mike Nellis looks back at the use of the creative arts in prisons in Scotland's Barlinnie Unit, whilst Justice Tankebe explores police legitimacy.

Incarceration Nation demonstrates that the US public played a critical role in the rise of mass incarceration in this country.

Should public opinion determine--or even influence--sentencing policy and practice? Should the punishment of criminal offenders reflect what the public regards as appropriate? These deceptively simple questions conceal complex theoretical and methodological challenges to the administration of punishment. In the West, politicians have often answered these questions in the affirmative; penal reforms have been justified with direct reference to the attitudes of the public. This is why the contention that politicians should bridge the gap between the public and criminal justice practice has widespread resonance. Criminal law scholars, for their part, have often been more reluctant to accept public input in penal practice, and some have even held that the idea of consulting public opinion constitutes a populist approach to punishment. The purpose of this book is to examine the moral significance of public opinion for penal theory and practice. For the first time in a single volume the editors, Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts, have assembled a number of respected criminologists, philosophers, and legal theorists to address the various aspects of why and how public opinion should be reflected in the way the criminal justice system deals with criminals. The chapters address the myriad complexities surrounding this issue by first weighing the justifications for incorporating public views into punishment practices and then considering the various ways this might be achieved through juries, prosecutors, restorative justice programs, and other means.