Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Punishment & Society
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 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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, G.
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?

Exploring risk management in probation practice

Contemporary developments in England and Wales

Gwen Robinson

University of Wales, Swansea, UK

As an exemplar of modern penality’s ‘normalizing sector’ (Garland, 1985), probation is deeply implicated in the purported shift towards a ‘new’ or ‘postmodern’ penal rationality with risk management rather than normalization at its heart. This article reviews the emergence of risk management in recent criminological theory and goes on to explore the emergence of risk and risk management in the Probation Service in England and Wales during the 1990s. Drawing on the author’s recent empirical research it then presents an analysis of the dynamics of offender supervision in probation which, in common with a growing number of studies in other penal contexts, reveals that the increasing dominance of risk-based reasoning has not ushered in an approach conforming entirely to theoretical formulations of risk management. It is argued that in the context of probation supervision two relatively distinct ‘modes of governance’ are emerging, based on a distinction between those offenders assessed as posing a serious risk of harm to the public, and those who are not. It is argued that these modes of governance constitute different but complementary adaptations to the purported shift from normalization to risk management, or from ‘old’ to ‘new’ penologies.

Key Words: penality • probation • rehabilitation • risk

Punishment & Society, Vol. 4, No. 1, 5-25 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/14624740222228446


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
G. Robinson and F. McNeill
Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties
Theoretical Criminology, November 1, 2008; 12(4): 431 - 449.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Social Legal StudiesHome page
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]


Home page
Punishment SocietyHome page
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]


Home page
Punishment SocietyHome page
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]


Home page
Probation JournalHome page
G. Robinson
Implementing OASys: Lessons from Research into LSI-R and ACE
Probation Journal, March 1, 2003; 50(1): 30 - 40.
[Abstract] [PDF]