This 1966 paperback edition of a publication which first appeared in 1963 has by now been widely reviewed as a worthy contribution to the sociological study of deviant behavior. Its current appearance as a paperback is a testimonial both to the quality of the work and to the prominence of deviant behavior in this generation. In general the author places deviance in perspective, identifies types of deviant behavior, considers the role of rule makers and enforcers, and some of the problems in studying deviance. In addition, he develops a sequential model of deviance relying on the concept of career, a concept originally developed in studies of occupations. In his study of a particular kind of deviance, the use of marihuana, the author posits and tests systematically an hypothesis about the genesis of marihuana use for pleasure. The hypothesis traces the sequence of changes in individual attitude

Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.

Nos últimos trinta trinta anos, houve profundas mudanças na forma como compreendemos o crime e a justiça criminal. O crime tornou-se um evento simbólico, um verdadeiro teste para a ordem social e para as políticas governamentais, um desafio para a sociedade civil, para a democracia e para os direitos humanos. Segundo David Garland, professor da Faculdade de Direito da New York University, um dos principais autores no campo da Sociologia da Punição e com artigo publicado na Revista de Sociologia e Política , número 13, na modernidade tardia houve uma verdadeira obsessão securitária, direcionando as políticas criminais para um maior rigor em relação às penas e maior intolerância com o criminoso. Há trinta anos, nos EUA e na Inglaterra essa tendência era insuspeita. O livro mostra que os dois países compartilham intrigantes similaridades em suas práticas criminais, a despeito da divisão racial, das desigualdades econômicas e da letalidade violenta que marcam fortemente o cenário americano. Segundo David Garland, encontram-se nos dois países os “mesmos tipos de riscos e inseguranças, a mesma percepção a respeito dos problemas de um controle social não-efetivo, as mesmas críticas da justiça criminal tradicional, e as mesmas ansiedades recorrentes sobre mudança e ordem sociais”1 (GARLAND, 2001, p. 2). O argumento principal da obra é o seguinte: a modernidade tardia, esse distintivo padrão de relações sociais, econômicas e culturais, trouxe consigo um conjunto de riscos, inseguranças e problemas de controle social que deram uma configuração específica às nossas respostas ao crime, ao garantir os altos custos das políticas criminais, o grau máximo de duração das penas e a excessivas taxas de encarceramento.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rsocp/n20/n20a15.pdf

The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary, society

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society

This article presents a systematic review of 122 articles and books (1987–2013) of co-creation/co-production with citizens in public innovation It analyses (a) the objectives of co-creation and co-production, (b) its influential factors and (c) the outcomes of co-creation and co-production processes It shows that most studies focus on the identification of influential factors, while hardly any attention is paid to the outcomes Future studies could focus on outcomes of co-creation/co-production processes Furthermore, more quantitative studies are welcome, given the qualitative, case study, dominance in the field We conclude with a research agenda to tackle methodological, theoretical and empirical lacunas

/pdf/a-systematic-review-of-co-creation-and-co-production-4yz7gvaty1.pdf

A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey

Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs

It is increasingly accepted that the change process underpinning the intended outcomes of community supervision, namely community safety, social rehabilitation and reintegration, cannot be achieved without the service user's active involvement and participation in the process. Their consent, compliance and cooperation is therefore necessary to achieving these outcomes and yet, when it comes to very high risk sexual and violent offenders, in the pursuit of community safety, control oriented, preventative practices predominate over change focused, participatory approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 professionals' and 26 service users' to explore how, under the auspices of MAPPA, the supervisory process is enacted and experienced and the extent and means through which it affects people’s willingness to accept or invest in not only the process but the purpose of supervision. It is argued that how the process of community supervision is experienced and what it comprises, not only shapes the outcomes of supervision, but also the nature of consent, compliance and cooperation. We conclude by advocating for more participatory processes and practices to promote service users' active engagement in, and ownership of, the process of change, and in that, the realisation of both the normative dimensions and intended outcomes of community supervision.

/pdf/managing-high-risk-offenders-in-the-community-compliance-4lvf8ikh6q.pdf

Managing high risk offenders in the community: Compliance, cooperation and consent in a climate of concern:

This article seeks to explain the reasons for the sharp rise in prison recall rates in Scotland. It argues that recall practices need to be understood not as a technical corner of the justice system, but as part of a wider analysis of the politics of sentencing and release policy. While there are sound reasons for a policy of ‘early release’ (incentivizing good behavior and enabling the resettlement of prisoners), in practice early release has increasingly been used as a tool to try to limit the growth in the custodial population. Unable to control prison numbers through the ‘front door’ (judicial sentencing and bail/remand), successive governments have increasingly relied on early release as a surreptitious way of, in effect, re-sentencing prisoners. We argue that this political strategy is ultimately self-defeating, not least in feeding public cynicism about the penal system and community supervision in particular. This article reviews the changing legislative, policy and practice landscape of the regulation of non-compliance and recall practice, and draws on the desistance literature to illustrate how offender-supervisor relationships can be undermined by recall policies which threaten the legitimacy of both the supervisory relationship and the conditions of supervision orders.

/pdf/the-failure-of-recall-to-prison-early-release-front-door-and-2kboyqog9h.pdf

The Failure of Recall to Prison: Early Release, Front-Door and Back-Door Sentencing and the Revolving Prison Door in Scotland

This essay aims to explore the interfaces between Habermas' theory of communicative action (in particular his notion of the 'colonisation of the lifeworld'); Duff's penal communication theory and Rex's recent work on reconstructing community penalties. Its central argument is that a critical reading of the desistance research provides empirical support for the need to reconceptualise penal practices as communicative enterprises which can engage with their stakeholders in supporting desistance-both at the level of the individual and in the community. Particular attention is paid to the need to reconsider the relationship between 'offender management' services and the communities which they purport to serve.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1362480608100171

Communicative punishment as a penal approach to supporting desistance

In 2003, McNeill argued that desistance research required a major shift in probation practice; a departure from practices underpinned solely by cognitive behavioural psychology focused on changing individual mindsets to practices attending to the relational and social contexts within and through which desistance occurs. Ten years hence, precisely how such a paradigm shift might be realised in practice remains inadequately understood. McNeill (2006:46) proposed that ‘offender management services need to think of themselves less as providers of correctional treatment (that belongs to the expert) and more as supporters of desistance processes (that belong to the desister).’ Maruna (2006:16) similarly argued that reintegration properly belongs to communities and to formerly incarcerated persons and that the role of the practitioner is to ‘support, enhance and work with the organically occurring community processes of reconciliation and earned redemption’. Building on these observations, this chapter will commence with a brief overview of the outcomes of desistance research to provide context to the principal focus of this chapter; exploring how such a paradigm shift can and should translate into practice. Moreover, recognizing that the process of desistance, and the people who support it, extend beyond penal practices and practitioners, the focus here is on how practitioners might begin to reconfigure their relationships with and to individuals, families, groups and communities in order to co-produce desistance. Given that the emphasis of this edited collection is on penal practices and practitioners, this chapter will not dwell on the important role of peer-productive practices (Pestoff 2012) such as peer mentoring, self help, activism and mutual aid and their vital contribution in collaboratively co-producing desistance promoting community justice services. Such practices are discussed elsewhere (see for example Maruna and LeBel 2009; Weaver 2011; Weaver and Lightowler 2012; Weaver and McCulloch 2012).

Co-producing desistance: who works to support desistance

Drawing on Bevir’s (2013) decentered theory of governance, and Donati’s (2016) theory of the relational subject, this article explores how User Voice Prison Councils in England have contributed to shifts in aspects of prison governance and practice. It discusses the cultural and policy context in which the Councils emerged and operate before exploring their perceived purposes, dynamics and effects. User Voice Prison Councils represent an important example of different actors co-producing alternative patterns of governance through innovations in democratic participation. Interviews with Prison Council participants, User Voice and Prison staff revealed that the development of such ‘bottom up’ participatory governance practices require and restore interpersonal trust, the mechanisms of which are interactions underpinned by a distinct manner of relating and the establishment of a network of relations oriented to the common good. The effects include enhanced institutional legitimacy; improvements in prison officer-prisoner relations; and greater quality of life for prisoners. Revealing the ‘how’ of coproduction, from the ‘inside’, the argument advanced here is that while the effects of coproduction may be more ameliorative than transformative, such collaborative and dialogic approaches can enable differently situated people to forge new norms of interactions and forms of democratic participation to achieve collective goals.

/pdf/co-production-governance-and-practice-the-dynamics-and-26nt2bojbj.pdf

Beth Weaver

Papers

Managing high risk offenders in the community: Compliance, cooperation and consent in a climate of concern:

The Failure of Recall to Prison: Early Release, Front-Door and Back-Door Sentencing and the Revolving Prison Door in Scotland

Communicative punishment as a penal approach to supporting desistance

Co-producing desistance: who works to support desistance

Co-production, governance and practice : the dynamics and effects of user voice prison councils