Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theoretical Criminology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haggerty, K. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Displaced Expertise

Three Constraints on the Policyrelevance of Criminological Thought

Kevin D. Haggerty

University of Alberta, Canada

The long-standing relationship between criminal justice policy and the advice of criminologists has been ruptured in the past two decades. Three interrelated factors help to account for this displacement of criminological thought: (1) the rise of neo-liberal forms of governance which have made traditional forms of criminological knowledge and preferred sites of intervention increasingly superfluous to the practice of governance; (2) the ascendancy of a highly symbolic public discourse about crime; and (3) the transformation of the criminal justice system by new technologies of detection, capture and monitoring. While criminologists continue to influence the development of specific criminal justice policies, the combination of these three developments pose additional hurdles for our ability to shape criminal justice policies in a rational manner.

Key Words: crime policy • criminology • governance • politics • technology

Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 211-231 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1362480604042244
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theoretical CriminologyHome page
T. Monahan
Identity theft vulnerability: Neoliberal governance through crime construction
Theoretical Criminology, May 1, 2009; 13(2): 155 - 176.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
H. Wells
The Techno-Fix Versus The Fair Cop: Procedural (In)Justice and Automated Speed Limit Enforcement
Br. J. Criminol., November 1, 2008; 48(6): 798 - 817.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
K. Ismaili
Contextualizing the Criminal Justice Policy-Making Process
Criminal Justice Policy Review, September 1, 2006; 17(3): 255 - 269.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theoretical CriminologyHome page
K. D. Haggerty
Technology and crime policy: Reply to Michael Jacobson
Theoretical Criminology, November 1, 2004; 8(4): 491 - 497.
[PDF]