FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W304125438> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W304125438 startingPage "89" @default.
• W304125438 abstract "Introduction IT IS NOW COMMONPLACE TO DISCUSS THE CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL CONDITION BY reference to the risk society thesis. In the view of some commentators, the contemporary condition transcends questions of risk in favor of a discourse that embraces questions of morality and precaution (see, for example, Ericson and Doyle, 2003). Yet much remains to be understood about the nature and impact of the risk society thesis, not only as it permeates public understandings, but also as it infiltrates public policy. Of course, much has been made of the differential impact of the risk society in relation to crime in contemporary life. Young (1999, 2003a), for example, talks of the move from the inclusive to the exclusive society and the concomitant rise in vindictiveness. Garland (2001) tells us about the embeddedness of risk-associated ideas in relation to criminal justice policy through the vehicle of the of Both analyses (among others) take as given the importance of the crime victim as a dominant and symbolic reference point for government policy (qua Garland and Sparks, 2000). Arguably, however, analyses such as these do not delve deeply enough into the mechanisms underlying these processes or their impact. The purpose of this article is to explore a deeper analysis and to offer an understanding of the current imagining of the crime victim as a source of citizenship (Young, A., and Rush, 1994) and of oppressive citizenship. To achieve this level of understanding, this article falls into three parts. The first offers a critical review of contemporary analyses of criminal justice policy, with particular reference to the culture of control. The second considers this critical review and the questions it raises in the context of the crime victim. In the light of these considerations, the third section offers some thoughts on how to further develop our understanding of the of Control, Vindictiveness, and Regulation Following what might be called the Foucauldian tradition, Garland (1985, 1990, 2001) has been concerned to trace a genealogy of contemporary criminal justice policy in the United Kingdom and the United States, with a particular emphasis on penal policy. Garland's problematic in the of is to trace the development, growth, and impact of crime control strategies in those two countries. In the background of his analysis is his understanding of the transformations of late modern society: the enterprise culture, spatial mobility, individualism, and changes in the labor market and family structure. In the foreground are the concepts used to link these transformations with the contemporary nature of crime control strategies: responsiblization, new managerialism, adaptation to failure, and punitiveness, all of which comprise the culture of control. The cumulative effect of this has been the normalization of crime and an increasing awareness of the limits of the state to solve the crime problem. Much of this is very familiar to us, as is the elegance and incisiveness of Garland's argument. However, Young (2003b), Feeley (2003), and Braithwaite (2003) have subjected Garland's thesis to critical scrutiny. To develop this article, I shall review and address their concerns (and some of my own) under five headings, some of which are found in Young (2003b) and Feeley (2003): the problem of method, the problem of policy and politics, the problem of narrative, the problem of criminology, and the problem of political economy. All three of Garland's critics address the problem of method. Young and Feeley speak to Garland's preoccupation with comparing the U.S. and the U.K. Young's position is that Garland pays too much attention to the similarities between these two jurisdictions and Feeley suggests that both are only useful as outliers, that is, as the deviant cases that might be usefully revealing about the norm with which Garland is not concerned. …" @default.
• W304125438 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W304125438 creator A5050014306 @default.
• W304125438 date "2005-03-22" @default.
• W304125438 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W304125438 title "Imagining the Crime Victim: The Rhetoric of Victimhood as a Source of Oppression" @default.
• W304125438 cites W1488475356 @default.
• W304125438 cites W1603770518 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2032536605 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2034816617 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2117329076 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2119141997 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2159032651 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2259529988 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2770972430 @default.
• W304125438 cites W2905131843 @default.
• W304125438 cites W3125014134 @default.
• W304125438 cites W3125306186 @default.
• W304125438 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W304125438 type Work @default.
• W304125438 sameAs 304125438 @default.
• W304125438 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W304125438 countsByYear W3041254382012 @default.
• W304125438 countsByYear W3041254382015 @default.
• W304125438 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W304125438 hasAuthorship W304125438A5050014306 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C102587632 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C148592440 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C2776526686 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C63063934 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W304125438 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C102587632 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C1370556 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C138885662 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C144024400 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C148592440 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C17744445 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C199539241 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C2776526686 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C36289849 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C41895202 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C63063934 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C73484699 @default.
• W304125438 hasConceptScore W304125438C94625758 @default.
• W304125438 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W304125438 hasLocation W3041254381 @default.
• W304125438 hasOpenAccess W304125438 @default.
• W304125438 hasPrimaryLocation W3041254381 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W119616519 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W1489898247 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W1504234858 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W1582244734 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W1997507181 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2020352214 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2029908348 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W204449151 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2089579565 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2216796779 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2243257586 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2316479218 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2599784562 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2610231021 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W426562490 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W51078951 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W78608961 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W94070637 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W186989762 @default.
• W304125438 hasRelatedWork W2189301380 @default.
• W304125438 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W304125438 isParatext "false" @default.
• W304125438 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W304125438 magId "304125438" @default.
• W304125438 workType "article" @default.