This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by KEMSHALL, H. Articles by MAGUIRE, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penality

The Multi-Agency Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders

De Montfort University, UK and Cardiff University, UK

MIKE MAGUIRE

De Montfort University, UK and Cardiff University, UK

This article uses empirical research on the implementation of risk assessment and risk management procedures by public protection panels in England and Wales, to assess how far the evidence supports claims of a broad shift in modes of crime control from penal modernism towards a new `risk penality' characteristic of the late (or post-) modern period. The result is a mixed and contradictory picture, in which the dominant discourse around measures to deal with sexual and `dangerous' offenders is in tune with this claim, but there are numerous aspects of agency culture and practice - for example, interest in the individual case, and the valuing of professional judgement above actuarial tools - which reflect the continuing strength of the `modernist' project. There are, however, signs of a growing populist challenge to the modernist assumption that risk knowledge and management should be left to small groups of `experts' working in secret. Overall, perhaps the strongest evidence of a shift towards new penal forms lies in (a) the emergence of new forms of partnership, driven by the `logic of risk', and (b) the significant dispersal of accountability which has accompanied their development.

Key Words: multi-agency • partnership • penality • risk • sex offenders

Punishment & Society, Vol. 3, No. 2, 237-264 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/14624740122228311


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Tata, N. Burns, S. Halliday, N. Hutton, and F. McNeill Assisting and Advising The Sentencing Decision Process: The Pursuit of 'Quality' in Pre-Sentence Reports Br. J. Criminol., November 1, 2008; 48(6): 835 - 855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Seddon Dangerous liaisons: Personality disorder and the politics of risk Punishment Society, July 1, 2008; 10(3): 301 - 317. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Tata Sentencing as Craftwork and the Binary Epistemologies of the Discretionary Decision Process Social Legal Studies, September 1, 2007; 16(3): 425 - 447. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Hutchinson Countering catastrophic criminology: Reform, punishment and the modern liberal compromise Punishment Society, October 1, 2006; 8(4): 443 - 467. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. K. Cheliotis How iron is the iron cage of new penology?: The role of human agency in the implementation of criminal justice policy Punishment Society, July 1, 2006; 8(3): 313 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Hannah-Moffat Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject: Hybridizations of risk/need in penality Punishment Society, January 1, 2005; 7(1): 29 - 51. [Abstract] [PDF]