Home » Criminology Team
Category Archives: Criminology Team
Easter chocolate: sad times
As an individual who does not practice or celebrate Easter religiously, there are two things which make this time of year special: the Bank Holidays (and hopefully delightful spring weather) and the socially accepted and encouraged purchasing and consuming of chocolate! Now, whilst I recognise the symbolism of the Easter Egg, and the various spring-shaped chocolate goodies (lambs, ducks, chicks, etc), growing up we didn’t get Easter Eggs but instead were treated to a large bar of Cadbury’s dairy milk! The mantra in the James household was very much that it was a) cheaper than nearly all Easter Eggs per 100g, b) significantly bigger and provided much more chocolate than most Easter Eggs. However, once I left home and was able to make my own food-based choices, Easter Eggs, mini eggs and all the other Easter consumable goodies, became a staple at this time of year: much to my father’s horror! My teeny tiny act of rebellion against my upbringing would be to treat myself, partner and friends to some Easter goodies! BUT, and it is a big but, they would be purchased over the Easter bank holiday weekend at discounted prices because … well, I am still a James after all!
Back in October 2022, I wrote a blog on the ‘Chocolate Cost-of-living crisis’ and how share bags of chocolate had gone up from £1 a bag to £1.25: oh to pay £1.25 now would be incredible! Today we are in the dizzy heights of £1.50 per bag and the cheapest (branded) chocolate is around £1.10 per 100g. Back in 2022 Terry’s chocolate orange was £1.00 (63p per 100g) and now it sits at £1.80 in most shops! The large bars of Cadbury’s are at £4.50 on offer when in 2022 they were £3! And I have not checked the lactose-free and vegan friendly products which are usually (but not always) more expensive! And unfortunately, Easter Eggs and goodies have been hit in the same way! Teeny tiny eggs that used to be 75p to £1.00 are now £1.50 and the medium eggs (although really they were/are small) vary from £3.50-£6 depending on where you shopped! Given the rises in fuel, energy and the grim state of the world currently, families need chocolate but more and more it is becoming unaffordable!
On Good Friday, I embarked on my annual ‘Adult Easter Egg Hunt’ which is where I hit the supermarkets for discounted Easter chocolate. Aldi had very few eggs left, and these were not discounted, Tesco had lots left but were not discounted. It was a sad day. Tuesday I ventured back to Tesco and alas the Eggs and goodies were discounted BUT, and again it is a big but, the discount although half price on all Eggs they had left, still placed the chocolate and £1.35 per 100g at the cheapest! This is not a discount! There were lots left on shelves and lots of people were picking up the ‘good’ deal but the reality is this is not a good deal! As I stressed in 2022, it is important to look at the price per grams because otherwise that’s how they get you! Yellow and red stickers which claim discount, which is technically accurate, but the discount is still not cheaper than a good old fashioned large bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk! Guess things really do have a way of coming full circle…
Share this:
An academic reflection – from BA to book!
When I reflect on my journey into academia it does feel surreal at times. From starting a BA in History and Criminology, to a Masters in Criminology and Criminal Justice to my PhD in criminology. It has been quite the journey, and each qualification came one after the next. I often wonder if the quick movement from one to the next allowed for full reflection into the achievement, the journey and how I viewed myself as I became closer to the world of academia. I started my journey into academia in 2020 towards the end of my PhD, and just after the first Covid-19 lockdown. Technically I was in the world of academia on paper but still learning from others in the field and relying on their expertise and guidance. However, I think being in this position was positive and I continue to still seek guidance and expertise from others that have experience and knowledge within the field.
After completing the PhD and minor corrections, there was time for reflection, alongside another opportunity of turning the PhD into a book. The process of creating the book was one of pride and doubt. Suddenly, having full creative license so to speak without the guidance of supervisors felt like unchartered territory, particularly as I had been doing the PhD part time from October 2016 to January 2023. Moreover, I had to think about how the book would be different from the PhD, what it needed to convey and how to improve its accessibility. I like to think the book offers the most important parts of the PhD in a format that is more accessible, condensed and engaging.
Each chapter plays an important role, with the first few chapters laying the foundations for the themes in the remainder of the chapters. To avoid turning this into a book review, instead I highlight the chapter that holds a special place in my heart, Chapter 4 – Monologues and Table Reads: Identity Trees and Lived Experiences. This chapter introduces the identity tree task I completed with a number of Black women in prison. The task itself represents vulnerability, from both me and the participants, difficulty (as the process of explaining and supporting the women through the task was not always easy), and change. It marked a change as it was a clear move away from a traditional method of capturing data and a different way of engaging with participants. I learnt from the participants as much as they learned from me. Furthermore, power dynamics were reduced; it just felt like a group of Black women sharing stories and encouraging resilience and support, even though the latter was not always explicit. In this chapter you get to see and hear about the experiences of these Black women and the events that shaped their lives prior to imprisonment. Their stories reveal the importance of intersectionality and the complexity of our identities.
So as I embark on making the contents of the book more known to a variety of audiences, please be part of the process. You can do this by asking questions about the book, sharing it on your platforms, attending events regarding the book and getting the voices of the Black women in this book out there. My book launch, at the University of Northampton, offers an opportunity to hear about some of the themes in the book, the process of conducting the research and further hopes of what can be done to support Black women in prison. All who attend will be entered into a raffle to win a free copy of the book. Please see the link below for further information about the event.
Black Women in Prison Book Launch
Share this:
Not reading criminology? That’s criminal!
There are two kinds of criminology conversations I get embroiled in these days! Those with people who read criminology where we discuss many social/cultural phenomena under a specific lens or those with people who find criminology interesting, but consume popular crime instead. The first group with varying level of engagement is beginning to decode some tell-tell signs in current events, using their knowledge of the discipline, as a deciphering mechanism. The second group is quite different. Their understanding of crime is based on dramatisations and literary conventions around plots and characters. Even real crime is harbouring under the guise of some “exclusive” journalistic exposé…far from any basic criminological understanding.
Years ago, a colleague from Sociology told me a story regarding a family event. They were completing their PhD in the discipline, and they were questioned by an elderly person, as to what they would do when they finished their thesis. They responded in the usual way many graduate students tend to, about hoping to get into academia or get some funding for some further research. The elderly person didn’t seem satisfied…. they prompted further. What will be your specialism? What will you be able to tell people that you are proficient in? Society and people, the colleague replied! That’s hardly a skill, the old relative replied; we all live in society! The colleague was equally intrigued and offended. They thought that by offering a succinct response it would have helped their relative to understand without being confounded with notions on symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. This was a little anecdote that resonates with many social scientists, criminologists included, that whilst they try to explore people and culture around them, they are becoming distant to the actual people around them.
The degree of challenge in recent years seems to increase for disciplines where people in general have a vague idea of what it is. Many try to use psychological terms to explain other people’s behaviours, without realty appreciating, the clinical and scientific conditions of the term. That is relevant to criminology too. The representation of crime for public consumption has introduced some of the discipline’s terms into everyday parlance. From forensic terms on profiling, to the origins of criminality, expectations on crime are forged. A criminologist’s reaction to popular criminology pundits tends to be, well not quite, only to be met with disbelief of the criminology they know!
One of the ways to appeal to those interested in popular criminology and take them to the discipline will be to add some facts and figures that promote reality. Perhaps but that has been done before but only to give a gloss of “legitimacy” in fiction. It makes it more compelling, but it doesn’t really offer the depth of knowledge. To understand criminology, one must read criminology. The history is filled with colleagues who brought their imagination to the discipline. From Bonger’s Criminality and Economic Conditions to Jock Young and The Criminological Imagination there are books and papers that are waiting to be read by a new audience to try to figure out these ideas.
Maybe we all live in society and heard about crime and even experienced it, but to understand it we need some criminology. The discipline, as with all social sciences, is a dialogue between people ready to carry forward the next constructs that shall appear as crimes. If we read them and take part in these conversations maybe the area of harsh punishments, exclusion and persecution may not be as appealing. We are an academic discipline but at the same time we open the discussion to our community. So if you are neither a student, graduate, nor fellow academic and you are interested in criminology, why don’t you come to visit? https://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/contact-us/open-days/
Share this:
Self-Care: A Criminologist’s Confession
Let me be upfront, I study crime for a living. I am not a wellness guru. I do not own a journal with an inspirational quote on the cover and I have never once made a green smoothie by choice. So if you were expecting expert advice, I apologise. What I do have is a recently sustained injury, a pair of retired running shoes (not the picture above!), and something to say about all of it.
Back in November, I got injured during a light gym sesh. Nothing dramatic, no heroic story involving a marathon finish line or a training montage. My body simply decided it had opinions, and I had to stop running. For someone who uses running to decompress, that was not ideal. Turns out when you take away the one thing that clears your head, your head gets quite crowded.
Now, before I go any further, I need to take a moment to salute my old running shoes, ASICS Gel. It was fire! Two years of loyalty, two years of 6am starts, two years of rain, wind and whatever else the British weather threw at us, two years of bad days turned around, two years of grinding when the motivation was nowhere to be found. Never complained. Never let me down. Absolute workhorse!!. Round of applause for these guys. Rest well.
I did want to include a photo as a tribute. My wife looked at it this morning and said, “nah, that’s ugly, delete it.” So. No photo. The shoes deserved better and apparently so do you.
In their place, there is a new sheriff in town as you can see up there. Fresh out of the box, and performing very well so far. No complaints. High hopes. ASICS, run me my influencer cheque quick!!!!
Getting back into running after time off is humbling. Your lungs have apparently moved on with their lives. Your legs remember nothing. But we are getting there, slowly, steadily, without any illusions of grandeur. Some days are better than others. The weather has not always helped, although getting better.
But then, getting back to it, however slowly, has reminded me how much I had let self-care slide. It is easy to do. Life gets busy, work piles up, and suddenly taking care of yourself feels like one more thing on the to-do list.
So, from one person who is very much a work in progress: take care of yourselves. Whatever that looks like for you. It does not have to be running. It does not have to be anything impressive. It just has to be something.
I’ll be back with an update on how the new ones are getting on. Fingers crossed they have what it takes to fill those shoes. Literally.
Share this:
Crime II: Nature and Nurture?
Fifty years after Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” an American criminologist explored the origins of criminality from a different perspective. For Edwin Sutherland people weren’t born criminal but more likely influenced by their environment. Differential association became a theory that changed the focus from biology to environment. This change signified the change of focus within criminology from biological attributes to social features.
This change, whilst it appears to have capture a wider social sciences debate at the time is also the outcome of trying to understand a world in motion. Sutherland’s theory comes in the early 20th century after the First World War and a massive economic crash. These placed in doubt the scientific and political economy of the time, putting many of these earlier ideas to the test. Popular movements challenged the authority of the state and the way hegemony suppressed people. Differential association was exploring how people learn crime by observing others; it becomes what Kornhouser called a ‘cultural deviance theory’.
What Sutherland articulated is that crime is learned through group conflict, again attempting to explain all types of crime like the biological theories before. The 20th century with its fast pace, European (World) wars, was the embodiment of modernity, progression and change. The world outside Europe began to rise against colonial rule, whilst civil rights became a rallying objective for many disenfranchised groups. In most countries worldwide women got the vote in the 20th century whilst, many countries recognised unions, and civil rights organisations, a consequence of people’s mobilisation.
It comes as no surprise then that differential association was a theory of crime that tried to account for social change and understand criminality as a process that moves within this change. The foundations of the theory in its simplest form are straightforward, covered in 9 main points:
1. Criminal behavior is learned from other individuals.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principle part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
The theory is more than a compilation of points and citing them is informative, but it doesn’t really explain the reach and extent. As a general theory of crime it can account for violent crime, theft and even white collar crimes. This reach of theory coincided with the wider discussion on “normative conflict” that focused on cultures. As discussions on cultural dominance, subcultures and the role of social groups became a sociological and criminological point these ideas introduced by Sutherland seemed to bare relevance.
There were questions already regarding the theory’s basis in terms of clarity as a cultural deviance theory, when culture focused away from poverty and social struggles. The cultural conflict seemed to resonate with certain crime categories, but it could not account for harm, leaving zemiologists to doubt the accuracy of its scope as theory. Furthermore, whilst the focus moved on from an arbitrary biology to the role of the environment some of the fundamental problems expected to be resolved in a general theory of crime remained unanswered.
So what is the answer? We can safely say that crime and most importantly criminality isn’t the product of a singularity nor its binary. How can we account for example for a social phenomenon whose definition of crime (in some instances) relies on law. A mechanism that the establishment uses to safeguard its privileges and position. The definitional factors therefore ought to transcend general conventions of biology or social interaction. Often they don’t, they merely describe the phenomenon but in closed cultural formats. There is a much more interesting and complex explanation that take us away from this binary. If you are more curious and you want to know more, why not join a criminology course and see if you can get the answer you expect or not. Criminology is a fascinating discipline not because we talk blood and bones but because we reflect on the current state of crime and imagine a world of crime (or free of crime) in the future. If you wish to share that imagination you can but join us!
https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-phd/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/courses/criminology-with-psychology-ba-hons/ https://www.northampton.ac.uk/blog/why-i-chose-criminology/
Share this:
Crime I: Nature or Nurture?
This is a two-part blog on embracing some of the criminological theory origin stories in the Western hemisphere. Is crime the product of bad genes or bad society? Are we born or made criminal?
In this week we shall be exploring our understanding of biological theories originating back in the 19th century with the “born criminal”. The following week we will look at the role of the environment.
The born criminal.
In 1871 Cesare Lombroso became the director at the Pesaro Mental Health Hospital (asylum) that housed the clinically insane. In that environment he examined the anatomical anomalies of residents in laboratory conditions. The era of the scientific exploration of deviance had begun. These meticulous explorations of bodily features and skulls formed the basis for his later thesis on The Born Criminal. The basis of his criminal population were residents of the asylum. His control group (i.e. those deemed non-criminal) were soldiers. Later, these were combined with the population of inmate prison population Lombroso and his associates visited. As he assumed an academic role in one of the finest Italian universities the world read his seminal publication of L’uomo delinquente {The Born Criminal] .Which in 1876 became one of the publications that influence the work of its contemporaries. In later years studied in exactly the same way. criminality in women using sex workers and prisoners as his research population cumulating into the 1893 publication of La Donna Delinquente: La prostituta e la donna normale [The Criminal Woman: The Prostitute and the Normal Woman.
His theoretical reach transcended borders and became widely read in the English-speaking world. This is an origin story according to numerous textbooks about the biological understanding of criminality. When embellished with some of the original quotes this becomes a theory of crime that explains different criminalities and makes the most significant leap that combines scientific rationale with crime. The methodology of anthropometry is a careful measuring of human features, prominently skulls! The main theoretical “innovation” was the recognition of a state of atavism; a regression onto a prior evolutionary stage for those engaged in crime.
A theory of crime on the born criminal seemed as a logical step at a time hailed as an era of discovery and exploration. A time that social and political movements in Europe asked profound questions about self and society. This narrative of course largely overlooks that whilst West European and US philosophers are posing these questions their elites and establishment are preoccupied with colonialism and dominance. In fact, it is the time European conflict around the world for dominance intensified. By the late 19th century, the European powers will try to manage their dominance in other continents by carving the world according to their own interests. The Berlin conference of 1884-85 is the culmination of such European competition and led to the split of Africa into zones of colonial influence.
In what way is The Born Criminal related with colonialism?
The theory of the “born criminal” breaks down humanity into two; the “normals” and the “atavists” which conveniently separates us from them. The criminal becomes the outcome of a lack of civilisation that can be seen in their physical features. There is history in separating people for the sake of exploitation, subjugation and even genocide. In this context of using civilisation (solely European) as the feature of separation is something previously seen in the colonisation of the Americas. When the European explorers landed in a new (for their map’s) continent the question of whom it belongs to was answered using religious decree. Several popes described the native population of these “discovered lands” as uncivilised and unworthy of human rights. It was the papal “Doctrine of Discovery” that denied the indigenous people rights to their land because uncivilised, faithless people (calling it terra nullus or empty land) do not count. Therefore, this separation for discrimination is not new, but Lombroso brought some scientific veneer to it.
It is important to remind all that “the born criminal” theory was widely discredited already in the early 20th century, when data analysis found no support for atavism and the biological features seemingly associated with criminality. Yet still this approach seems to capture even today some interest in the collective criminological imagination. Can you tell the prospective criminality reflected in someone’s gaze? It is a question that people still wonder, despite any lack of empirical or scientific data. The line of separating criminals from non-criminal provides an arbitrary differentiation that offers some clarity of how criminals should look, in a similar fashion to separating the “civilised” from the “savages”. In this overreaching correlation crime becomes the act of the uncivilised. It can also be flipped over and the uncivilised are the criminals contributing to the continuous fear of those who see the foreigner with suspicion.
A theory about the biological origins on crime that has offered us an explanation of the born criminal that has no scientific evidence but carries populist imagination because we take comfort in differentiating people. Next week we shall be exploring a theory that explores of the environmental factors of crime.
Share this:
A new model for policing: same old rhetoric, same old politics, same old reality
The Home Secretary’s White Paper ‘From Local to National: A New Model for Policing’ promises a complete revamp of policing in England and Wales. The Northamptonshire Police Federation website provides a fairly good synopsis of what the white paper contains. Although one does hope that they didn’t resort to the use of AI to produce it otherwise they may find themselves going the same way as the beleaguered former chief constable of the West Midlands Police.
When listening to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’ address to parliament regarding these reforms, I am reminded of a timeless quote from Robert Reiner regarding a former Home Secretary, Michael Howard’s address to parliament regarding another Home Office police reform White Paper back in the early 1990s. Michael Howard had stated that ‘the job of the police was to catch criminals’ and Robert Reiner, if I remember the quote correctly, stated that this statement was ‘breathtaking in its audacious simple mindedness’.
My bookshelf used to be full of Home Office White papers regarding police reform. If I went through every one of them, I would find almost all the suggestions, in one form or another, being put forward by this Home Secretary. It is like revisiting my former reality, change for change’s sake to detract from a poor performing government. Although no one could have guessed that Lord Mandelson would quickly hog the news and railroad the political landscape.
The police don’t do themselves any favours, you’ve only got to look at the headlines over the decades to know that. But of course, policing is not easy and sometimes hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons is inevitable. Rarely do the police hit the headlines for the right reasons, not because there aren’t plenty of right reasons, they simply aren’t newsworthy. However, every failure or perceived failure is ammunition for the ambitious politician and police reform is always a headline grabbing option and a distraction from other politically difficult and damning matters.
Let’s be clear, policing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Policing relies on the public; it relies on other institutions within the criminal justice system and outside of it and it relies on good governance. If the police are underfunded, then the service they deliver to the public is substandard and this then dents confidence in the police which in turn impacts public co-operation. If the other institutions within the criminal justice system are poorly funded such as the courts, then it doesn’t matter what the police do, cases do not get to court in a timely manner, the public withdraw their support and cases collapse. If prisons are overcrowded due to lack of funding and other issues, the courts can’t function correctly and the public lose confidence. As an aside remember the furore around the wrong prisoners being released and the number of prisoners wrongly released over a year. Funny how that seems to have disappeared from the news.
But the problems for policing and the rest of the judicial system pale into insignificance when compared to the issues with underfunding in areas of social services, welfare, the NHS, education and so much more. It is easy to point to policing when the key areas that impact the public the most are decimated. People don’t just commit crime because they are greedy, they don’t resort to violence for absolutely no reason. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that if you stop supporting young people, stop giving them hope for a future, stop keeping them engaged in meaningful activities when they are out of school then you will see crime and anti-social behaviour spiral out of control. And of course, its not just young people that feel the impact. Not so long ago there was a movement towards defunding the police. The ideas behind the movement were sound but I think perhaps a little naïve. But what was right was the idea of pouring more money into welfare and youth services. Crime is so much more than just policing, and the police have very little control over it, despite all the rhetoric.
As for policing, the white paper is just a rehash of the same old ideas and another way of wasting public money, not dissimilar to that in 2006 when another Home Secretary decided on police mergers which saw millions spent before the idea was shelved as too expensive. The police have adapted to issues identified by HMIC prior to the proposed mergers in 2006. Collaboration between forces works well, saves money and enables smaller forces to deal with large scale issues. There is no evidence anywhere that big is better. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it may not be.
If the police have retracted from neighbourhood policing it is because of underfunding. Austerity measures introduced in 2010/11 decimated police forces and their ability to deliver both neighbourhood and response policing. Neighbourhood policing became a luxury and coincidentally was also the area where instant savings could be made. Police Community Support Officers could be shed because unlike police officers, they can be made redundant. As for vetting, something that has grabbed the headlines, well what did you expect? Cut the budgets and those important but less immediate functions are also decimated. Add to this the political pressure to recruit 20,000 officers in a short space of time and you have a recipe for disaster.
I do wonder whether those chief officers that support the latest police reform agenda do so because they really understand policing and its history or because they are naïve or ambitious or perhaps a bit of both. To return to Robert Reiner, the reforms are quite simply ‘breathtaking in their audacious simple mindedness’ and the sooner they are shelved the better.
Share this:
Is it time to unleash your criminological imagination?
In this blog entry, I am going to introduce a seemingly disconnected set of ideas. I say seemingly, because at the end, all will hopefully make sense. I suspect the following also demonstrates the often chaotic and convoluted process of my thought processes.
I’ve written many times before about Criminology, at times questioning whether I have any claim to the title criminologist and more recently, what those with the title should talk about. These come on top of hundreds of hours of study, contemplation and reflection which provides the backdrop for why I keep questioning the discipline and my place within it. I know one of the biggest issues for me is social sciences, like Criminology and many others, love to categorise people in lots of different ways: class, race, gender, offender, survivor, victim and so on. But people, including me, don’t like to be put in boxes, we’re complex animals and as I always tell students, people are bloody awkward, including ourselves! There is also a far more challenging issue of being part of a discipline which has the potential to cause, rather than reduce or remove harm, another topic I’ve blogged on before.
It’s no secret that universities across the UK and further afield are facing many serious, seemingly intractable challenges. In the UK these range from financial pressures (both institutional and individual), austerity measures, the seemingly unstoppable rise of technology and the implicit (or explicit, depending on standpoint) message of Brexit, that the country is closed to outsiders. Each of the challenges mentioned above seem to me to be anti-education, rather than designed to expand and share knowledge, they close down essential dialogue. Many years ago, a student studying in the UK from mainland Europe on the Erasmus scheme, said to me that our facilities were wonderful, and they were amazed by the readily available access to IT, both far superior to what was available to them in their own country. Gratifying to hear, but what came next was far more profound, they said that all a serious student really need is books, a enthusiastic and knowledgeable teacher and a tree to sit under. Whilst the tree to sit under might not work in the UK with our unpredictable weather, the rest struck a chord.
The world seems in chaos and war-mongers everywhere are clamouring for violence. Recent events in Darfur, Palestine, Sudan, Ukraine, Venezuela and many other parts of the world, demonstrate the frailty, or even, fallacy of international law, something Drs @manosdaskalou, @paulsquaredd and @aysheaobrien1ca0bcf715 have all eloquently blogged about. But while these discussions are important and pertinent, they cannot address the immediate harm caused to individuals and populations facing these many, varied forms of violence. Furthermore, whilst it’s been over 80 years since Raphäel Lemkin first coined the term ‘genocide’, it seems world leaders are content to debate whether this situation or that situation fits the definition. But, surely these discussions should be secondary, a humanitarian response is far more urgent. After all, (one would hope) that the police would not standby watching as one person killed another, all whilst having a discussion around the definition of murder and whether it applied in this context.
The rise of technology, in particular Generative Artificial Intelligence, has been the focus of blogs from Drs @sallekmusa, @5teveh and myself, each with their own perspective and standpoint. Efforts to combat the harmful effects of Grok enabling the creation of non-consensual pornographic images demonstrate both new forms of Violence Against Women and Girls [VAWG] and the limitations of control and enforcement. Whilst countries are rushing to ban Grok and control the access of social media for children under 16, it is clear that Grok and X are just one form of GAI and social media, there is seemingly nothing to stop others taking their place. And as everyone is well aware, laws are broken on a daily basis (just look at the court backlog and the overflowing prisons) and with no apparent way of controlling children’s access to technology (something which is actively encouraged in schools, colleges and universities) these attempts seem doomed to fail. Maybe more regulation. more legislation isn’t the answer to this problem.
Above I have briefly discussed four seemingly intractable problems. In each arena, we have many thousands of people across the globe trying to solve the issues, but the problems still remain. Perhaps we should ask ourselves the following questions:
- Maybe we are asking the wrong people to come up with the answers?
- Maybe we are constraining discussions and closing down debate?
- Maybe by allowing the established and the powerful to control the narrative we just continue to recycle the same problems and the same hackneyed solutions?
What if there’s another way?
And here we come to the crux of this blog, in Criminology we are challenged to explore any problem from all perspectives, we are continually encouraged to imagine a different world, what ought or could be a better place for all. I have the privilege of running two modules, one at level 4 Imagining Crime and one at Level 6 Violence. In both of these students work together to see the world differently, to imagine a world without violence, a world in which justice is a constant and reflection a continual practice. Walking into one of these classrooms you may well be surprised to see how thoughtful and passionate people can be when faced with a seemingly unsolvable problem when everything on the table is up for discussion. Although often misattributed to Einstein, the statement ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ seems apposite. If we want the world to be different, we have to allow people to think about things differently, in free and safe spaces, so they can consider all perspectives, and that is where Criminology comes in.
Be fearless and unleash your criminological imagination, who knows where it might take you!
Share this:
25 years is but a drop in time!
If I was a Roman, I would be sitting in my comfortable triclinium eating sweet grapes and dictating my thoughts to a scribe. It was the Roman custom of celebrating a double-faced god that started European celebrations for a new year. It was meant to be a time of reflection, contemplation and future resolutions. It is under these sentiments that I shall be looking back over the year to make my final calculations. Luckily, I am not Roman, but I am mindful that over 2025 years have passed and many people, have tried to look back. Since I am not any of these people, I am going to look into the future instead.
In 25 years from now we shall be heading to the middle of the 21st century. A century that comes with great challenges. Since the start of the century there has been talk of economic bust. The banking crisis slowed down the economy and decreased real income for people. Then the expectation was that crime will rise as it did before; whilst the juries may still be out. the consensus is that this crime spree did not come…at least not as expected. People became angry and their anger was translated in changes on the political map, as many countries moved to the right.
Prediction 1: This political shift to the right in the next 25 years will intensify and increase the polarisation. As politics thrives in opposition, a new left will emerge to challenge the populist right. Their perspective will bring another focus on previous divisions such as class. Only on this occasion class could take a different perspective. The importance of this clash will define the second half of the 21st century when people will try to recalibrate human rights across the planet. Globalisation has brought unspeakable wealth to few people. The globalisation of citizenship will challenge this wealth and make demands on future gains.
As I write these notes my laptop is trying to predict what I will say and put a couple of words ahead of me. Unfortunately, most times I do not go with its suggestions. As I humanise my device, I feel sorry for its inability to offer me the right words and sometimes I use the word as to acknowledge its help but afterwards I delete it. My relationship with technology is arguably limited but I do wonder what will happen in 25 years from now. We have been talking about using AI for medical research, vaccines, space industry and even the environment. However currently the biggest concern is not AI research, but AI generated indecent images!
Prediction 2: Ai is becoming a platform that we hope will expand human knowledge at levels that we could have not previously anticipated. One of its limitations comes from us. Our biology cannot receive the volume of information created and there is no current interface that can sustain it. This ultimately will lead to a divide between people. Those who will be in favour of incorporating more technology into their lives and those who will ultimately reject it. The polarisation of politics could contribute to this divide as well. As AI will become more personal and intrusive the more the calls will be made to regulate. Under the current framework to fully regulate it seems rather impossible so it will lead to an outright rejection or a complete embrace. We have seen similar divides in the past during modernity; so, this is not a novel divide. What will make it more challenging now is the control it can hold into everyday life. It is difficult to predict what will be the long-term effects of this.
During the late 20th and early 21st centuries drug abuse and trafficking seemed to continue to scandalise the public and maintain attention as much as it did back in the 1970s and 80s. Drugs have been demonised and became the topic of media representation of countless moral panics. Its reach in the public is wide and its emotional effect rivals only that of child abuse. Is drugs abuse an issue we shall be considering in 25 years from now?
Prediction 3: People used substances as far back as we can record history. Therefore, there will be drugs in the future to the joy of all these people who like to get high! It is most likely that the focus will be on synthetic drugs that will be more focused on their effects and how they impact people. The production is likely to change with printers being able to develop new substances on a massive scale. These will create a new supply line among those who own technology to develop new synthetic forms and those who own the networks of supply. In previous times a takeover did happen so it is likely to happen again, unless these new drugs emerge under formal monopolies, like drug companies who will legalise their recreative use.
One of the biggest tensions in recent years is the possibility of another war. Several European politicians have already raised it pretending to be making predictions. Their statements however are clear signs of war preparation. The language is reminiscent of previous eras and the way society is responding to these seems that there is some fertile ground. Nationalism is the shelter of every failed politician who promises the world and delivers nothing. Whether a citizen in Europe (EU/UK) the US or elsewhere, they have likely to have been subjected to promises of gaining things, better days coming, making things great…. only to discover all these were empty vacant words. Nothing has been offered and, in most cases, working people have found that their real incomes have shrunk. This is when a charlatan will use nationalism to push people into hating other people as the solution to their problems.
Prediction 4: Unfortunately, wars seem to happen regularly in human history despite their destructive nature. We also forget that war has never stopped and elusive peace happens only in parts of the world when different interests converge. There is a combination of patriotism, national pride and rhetoric that makes people overlook how damaging war is. It is awfully blindsided not to recognise the harm war can do to them and to their own families. War is awful and destroys working people the most. In the 20th century nuclear armament led to peace hanging by a thread. This fear stupidly is being played down by fraudsters pretending to be politicians. Currently the talk about hybrid war or proxy war are used to sanitise current conflicts. The use of drones seems to have altered the methodology of war, and the big question for the next 25 years is, will there be someone who will press THAT button? I am not sure if that will be necessary because irrespective of the method, war leaves deep wounds behind.
In recent years the discussion about the weather have brought a more prevailing question. What about the environment? There is a recognised crisis that globally we seem unable to tackle, and many make already quite bleak predictions about it. Decades ago, Habermas was exploring the idea of “colonization of the lifeworld” purporting that systemic industrial agriculture will lead to environmental degradation. Now it seems that this form of farming, the greenhouse gasses and deforestation are becoming the contributing factors of global warming. The inaction or the lack of international coordination has led calls for immediate action. Groups that have been formed to pressure political indecision have been met with resistance and suspicion, but ultimately the problem remains.
Prediction 5: The world acts when confronted with something eminent. In the future some catastrophic events are likely to shape views and change attitudes. Unfortunately, the planet runs on celestial and not human time. When a prospective major event happens, no one can predict its extent or its impact. The approach by some super-rich to travel to another planet or develop something in space is merely laughable but it is also a clear demonstration why wealth cannot be in the hands of few oligarchs. Life existed before them and hopefully it will continue well beyond them. On the environment I am hopeful that people’s views will change so by the end of this century we will look at the practices of people like me and despair.
These are mere predictions of someone who sits in a chair having read the news of the day. They carry no weight and hold no substantive strength. There is a recognition that things will change at some level and we shall be asked to adapt to whatever new conditions we are faced with. In 25 years from now we will still be asking similar questions people asked 100 years ago. Whatever happens, however it happens, life always finds a way to continue.
Share this:
25 years has gone too fast…
When we began, criminology was a single programme, a bold idea with big ambitions. Over the years, that idea grew into a department, and today, into a vibrant academic community offering a diverse range of courses that reflect the complexity of justice and society.
Our commitment to innovation has shaped this journey. We introduced research placements, immersive trips, and fieldwork experiences, from the Museum of Justice in the early days to visits to the Supreme Court more recently. These experiences have given our students not just knowledge, but perspective connecting theory with practice in powerful ways.
We’ve developed a wide range of modules and resources for those who wish to study criminology, equipping them with the skills and knowledge to join the wider criminology family. Our aim has always been to prepare students for both professional careers and academic study, ensuring they can explore every facet of this dynamic discipline.
None of this would have been possible without colleagues who share a passion for teaching and learning. Together, we’ve engaged students with new ways of thinking and approaches—turning them into the colleagues of tomorrow. This is the heart of what we do: inspiring, challenging, and empowering future generations.
As we celebrate this milestone, we also look forward. Criminology is ever evolving, and so are we. Our commitment to innovation, inclusivity, and excellence remains as strong as ever. The next 25 years will bring new challenges and opportunities and I know we will meet them with the same passion and purpose that brought us here today.
Thank you to everyone colleagues, students, partners who has been part of this incredible journey. Here’s to the next chapter in advancing criminology education and research. Together, we will continue to make a difference.
Thoughts from the criminology team 
