Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice

Abstract

Applied criminology may be thought of as being concerned with the application of the discipline of criminology to ‘real world’ problems of crime and criminal justice. It is both critical and engaged and seeks to find solutions to particular issues of crime and justice, as well as to problematize suggested approaches. The article sets out to review and explore attempts to address crime, to deal with offenders, and to respond to victims.

Full text

Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.
Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.
This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of the Social
& Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy
is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the
author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including
without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including
without limitation commercial reprints, selling or
licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or
repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s
permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
From Stout, B., Clamp, K., 2015. Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice. In: James D.
Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 1. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 832–838.
ISBN: 9780080970868
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
Elsevier
Author's personal copy

Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice
Brian Stout and Kerry Clamp, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia
Ó2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract
Applied criminology may be thought of as being concerned with the application of the discipline of criminology to ‘real
world’problems of crime and criminal justice. It is both critical and engaged and seeks to find solutions to particular issues of
crime and justice, as well as to problematize suggested approaches. The article sets out to review and explore attempts to
address crime, to deal with offenders, and to respond to victims.
Introduction: Applied Criminology: What Is It and How
Does It Work?
This article is concerned with surveying the field of applied
criminology or criminology in its applied form. Applied
criminology may be thought of as being concerned with the
‘real world’problems of crime and criminal justice and how the
research and scholarship within the discipline of criminology
can relate to them. It is influenced by both contemporary
academic criminology, which seeks to explore and conceptu-
alize crime, its causes, and the responses to it in theoretical
terms, and administrative criminology, which has largely
become an attempt to “implement pragmatic means of crime
opportunity reduction and to manage crime through situa-
tional prevention measures”(Muncie, 1998: 4).
Applied criminology seeks to address and compensate for
the perceived deficiencies of other criminological approaches.
Academic or theoretical criminology is vulnerable to the criti-
cism of being distant from real-world concerns and detached
from the public, criminal justice agencies and practitioners.
Administrative criminology can sometimes be atheoretical or
uncritical, and it suggests that the causes of crime are relatively
unimportant or politically impossible to tackle (see Young,
1988). Applied criminology can be viewed as an area of
study, which not only seeks to find solutions to particular
issues raised by crime and criminal justice, but also to prob-
lematize current and suggested approaches.
Applied criminology, as conceptualized by Stout et al.
(2008), seeks to draw on both academic criminology and
administrative criminology. Canton and Yates (2008:5)define
applied criminology as “a criminology which self-consciously
and deliberately explores the insights of criminology for their
relevance and application to policy and practice”and which
“should have a critical edge, casting a discriminating, analytical
gaze over the process of criminalisation, crime enforcement,
and the criminal justice system”(2008: 6). Criminological
research and theoretical knowledge has significant relevance for
addressing crime, offending, and victimization, and the
collection makes explicit the relationship between govern-
mental agendas and knowledge production.
Criminology, in its applied form, should engage with real-
world concerns but should not be simply pragmatic or func-
tional. It should have a critical edge, casting a discriminating,
analytical gaze over the process of criminalization, crime
enforcement, and the criminal justice system. It should seek to
expose the relationship between governmental agendas and
knowledge production (Canton and Yates, 2008: 6). Although
the term ‘applied criminology’is a familiar one, appearing in
the titles of courses, conferences, and research centers, it is not
possible to claim that it is, in itself, a distinct area of crimi-
nology. It does not claim to offer major premises or unifying
theories, which define crime, isolate the causes of offending,
and offer a solution to the crime problem (such as critical
criminology, peacemaking criminology, and so on). Applied
criminology should be thought of as an approach, which not
only seeks to find solutions to particular issues raised by crime
and criminal justice through established criminological
endeavors, but also to problematize current and suggested
approaches embraced by governments and criminal justice
agencies. It directly takes on the challenge implied in Loader
and Sparks’s (2010) conceptualization of criminology as
a‘successful failure’–a discipline that is successful in attracting
the attention of students and academics, but that has
a declining influence outside the academy. Applied crimi-
nology addresses the practice implications of criminological
scholarship.
With this orientation in mind, we use the term to discuss
criminology that has a direct connection with the ‘real’world
and thus highlight the role that criminological research has had
on shaping criminal justice and its responses to offenders and
victims at a policy level. In their characterization of applied
criminology, Canton and Yates (2008: 2) identify three prin-
cipal questions, which they suggest that applied criminology
should address:
lWhat is to be done about offenders?
lWhat is to be done about crime?
lWhat is to be done on behalf of the victims of crime?
This article uses a version of these questions, in a slightly
different order, to outline how criminology is being applied to
address each of these questions in turn.
What Is to Be Done about Crime?
A starting point for an account of the application of crimi-
nology is to take stock of the context of the understanding of
crime. Until the early postwar period, criminology had been
dominated by the positivist approach, which viewed the causes
of crime as a consequence of one’s circumstances and
832 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10512-4
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy

neoclassicism, which was based on the belief that certain
responses would reduce the likelihood of repeat offending.
However, during the late 1960s and 1970s, respectively, the
discipline underwent two major crises (Young, 1988). The first
related to what Young (1988) referred to as the “aetiological
crisis.”For the most part, positivism was based on the belief
that as social conditions improved, postwar crime would
decrease. However, crime did not decline as many had sus-
pected, instead it continued to rise. The second was a crisis of
penalty following the publication of a number of police studies
in the United States, which questioned the effectiveness of the
police and the reformative potential of prisons in dealing with
crime. This found expression in the ‘nothing works’pessimism,
discussed in the next section, and, coupled with increasing
crime rates, led to questioning of the ability of the state to
control crime (Garland, 2001: 62).
Many advanced liberal democracies responded to this
perceived limitation by reforming criminal justice institutions
and mobilizing nonstate mechanisms in the “fight against
crime”(Crawford, 2008). The 1970s and 1980s were charac-
terized by the revival of the ‘just deserts’model, which focused
on the punishment of the offense rather than on the needs of
the offender; an increased role for both the victim and the
‘community’in the administration of justice (rather than
professionals only); and the ‘politicization’of crime control in
which ‘public opinion’became a central issue. The rise of
“populist punitiveness”(Bottoms, 1995) or the “law and
order”ideology (Cavadino and Dignan, 2002) has often
involved politicians talking tough and introducing ever more
stringent penal policies in order to secure public support
(Young and Matthews, 2003). Garland (2001: 172) succinctly
describes this development as:
Criminal justice is now more vulnerable to shifts of public mood
and political reaction .The populist current in contemporary crime
policy is, to some extent, a political posture or tactic, adopted for
short-term electoral advantage.
This, unsurprisingly, has resulted in increased resources
being devoted to policing, prosecutions, and prisons (Roach,
2005;McEvoy, 2007) as advanced liberal governments seek
to demonstrate to their publics that they are able to control
crime. A widespread fear of crime and the ability of politicians
and the media to generate “moral panics”(Cohen, 1972) have
made this a popular strategy for those wanting to serve vested
interests. However, this has also had the adverse effect of
dramatically increasing prison populations and creating
a perception of increased criminal incidents, despite a relatively
stable decline in crime rates in the decade since the mid-1990s
(Cesaroni and Doob, 2003;Young and Matthews, 2003).
Many developed nations have therefore increasingly
become aware that an exclusive adherence to a punitive
strategy has not produced the desired result in terms of
“greater satisfaction with criminal justice or an increased sense
of security of justice”(Roach, 2005: 2). An increase in case-
loads; a perceived lack in the ability of the criminal justice
system to deal with crime effectively; and an increase in victim
advocacy (Albrecht, 1999;Garland, 2001;Zedner, 2002;
McEvoy, 2007) have therefore subsequently resulted in
concerted efforts to find new and innovative ways of dealing
with offenders and victims.
A highly visible attempt to reformulate the relationship
between criminal justice and its public has been located within
policing practice. The introduction of community-based
policing, problem-oriented policing, and restorative policing
during the 1980s and 1990s offered the police an alternative to
the reactive, incident-focused style (Paterson and Clamp,
2012). Such initiatives acknowledge the central role of the
community in identifying, reporting, and responding to crime,
and it is thought that the police are more likely to successfully
tackle crime where policing strategies are based within and
informed by community members themselves. However, this
ideological shift runs contrary to the historic policing mission
where independent police professional knowledge directs local
developments and it has thus generated a certain level of
resistance by police officers. Alongside this, a body of critical
literature has developed that questions the extent to which this
shift in power and responsibility has, or even can, take place
(Hobsbawm, 1995;Bauman, 2001). This literature questions
whether placing ‘the community’at the center of policing
policy makes sense, especially during a historical period in
which many communities (in their traditional sense) are
understood to have disappeared (see Clamp and Paterson,
2011).
Criminology has also engaged with policing in questioning
its very definition of crime and its approach to how offending is
measured and recorded thus leading to high-profile and heated
debates between police stakeholders and the academic
community (Eterno and Silverman, 2012). It has often been
the role of criminologists to hold the police to account and to
strongly criticize police practice, when required, such as in the
two high-profile British examples of the Hillsborough football
stadium disaster (Scraton, 2009) and the murder of Stephen
Lawrence (Bowling and Phillips, 2002). However, increasingly,
across the world, the application of criminology to policing is
taking place within police training with university-level
preentry police training programs being offered in, among
others, the UK, the United States, and Australia. Criminology
can then play a dual role of an outsider, researching and
commenting on practice, and an engaged insider, contributing
to the development of the profession.
What Is to Be Done about Offenders?
Criminological research has informed debates in criminal
justice with regard to the difficult question of what should be
done with offenders. Criminological research has been applied
in determining what approach should be taken in effectively
rehabilitating offenders, but this issue has not always been
simple or straightforward.
Discussions of the effectiveness of interventions with
offenders conventionally start with the notorious meta-analysis
of 231 cases (Lipton et al., 1975) and the conclusion from that
analysis, most often associated with Robert Martinson, which
almost nothing works with offenders. This research was often
mischaracterized and was used for political purposes, by both
left and right (Miller, 1989), but it provided an impetus for the
lengthy and ongoing work of establishing what is effective in
Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice 833
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy

working with offenders. Martinson himself later retracted his
‘nothing works’conclusion and accepted that some things work
in some circumstances (Martinson, 1979). Applied crimi-
nology has been concerned with determining what is effective
in working with offenders. However, there are also arguments
that simply asking ‘what interventions are effective?’is mis-
directed and reductive; it is also important to take account of
offenders’rights and of the narratives that offenders themselves
relate about their desistance from offending.
Over the last decades, the question of ‘what works’or what
is sometimes known as ‘effective practice’has dominated the
application of criminology to work with offenders. Mackenzie
(2000) summarized the extent of knowledge by identifying
that some of the approaches that worked included:
lRehabilitation programs with particular characteristics
lIncapacitating offenders who commit crime at high rates
lSome prison-based therapeutic programs
lPrograms based on cognitive behavioral therapy approach
lNonprison-based sex offender treatment programs
lVocational education programs in prison or in other resi-
dential settings
lMulticomponent correctional industry programs
lCommunity employment programs
Mackenzie also identified approaches that had been
consistently shown not to work in reducing reoffending. These
included specific deterrence programs, interventions based
solely on control or surveillance, and boot camps and other
wilderness programs. Counseling approaches that were vague
and unstructured also had no discernible effect on recidivism
rates. This vein of research continues with increasingly detailed
knowledge being produced regarding what is effective in
working with offenders. In the UK, the Probation Studies Unit
of the Centre for Criminological Research at the University of
Oxford had the stated goal of carrying out research into the
effectiveness of various interventions, and they emphasized the
need for well-designed studies to evaluate accredited programs
(Roberts, 2004). In Australia, the New South Wales Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) is the official source of
crime statistics for the state but also evaluates initiatives
designed to reduce crime and reoffending (BOCSAR, 2013).
The focus of criminological attention on, largely quantita-
tive, studies to determine the effectiveness of particular inter-
ventions on changing offender behavior has been subject to
challenge and criticism within criminology. Feeley and Simon
(1992) identified a new penology with a focus on actuarial
and efficient and effective processes that could lower our
expectations of the system and become detached from tradi-
tional concerns of rehabilitation or punishment. Garland
(2001: 19) went further in describing the “all pervasive man-
agerialism”that affected all aspects of criminal justice and led
to a social way of reasoning being replaced by an economic way
of reasoning. Cohen’s (1985) concerns were that an applied
criminology could be merely technicist and that measures
introduced ostensibly to help and support an offender could
simply become another mechanism of control. If applied
criminology is to be more than merely technicist or adminis-
trative, then it must address these concerns and there are
a number of ways that this has been done. Applied criminology
is also concerned with the rights of offenders and with their
own self-narratives regarding how they desist from offending,
and in supporting them to do this.
A simple focus on the effectiveness of programs in
addressing offending behavior can lead to crime being
considered as a natural disorder, analogous to illness, and can
leave crucial questions unexamined. For example, a simple
focus on the effectiveness of interventions can ignore the fact
that crime, and thus offending behavior, is social constructed. It
can also neglect questions of the differential representation of
particular groups in the criminal justice system and the link of
that representation to questions of social justice. Viewing
rehabilitation as a right, regardless of the effectiveness of
particular interventions, can help address this problem. Reha-
bilitative and therapeutic services as well as educational and
employment support can be provided without a need to
calculate their effectiveness (Rotman, 1986). Carlen (2013) has
gone further, arguing that a focus on rehabilitation is
a distraction from the injustices in society and in the criminal
justice system. She argues that we need an inclusive social
justice that reduces inequality and promotes citizenship.
The increasing attention given to what is now known as
desistance research and its focus on hearing from offenders
regarding how they have moved away from offending has
allowed criminological research and insights to become
applied to work with offenders. Desistance research has early
roots in the United States, particularly in the longitudinal life-
course studies analyzed by Sampson and Laub (1993), which
investigated how individuals became involved in offending
and later came to cease offending behavior. They found that
significant life events, such as getting married or finding
employment, were correlated with desisting from offending.
More recently, primarily in the UK, research and scholarship
(see, for example, Maruna, 2001;Farrall and Calverley, 2006;
McNeill, 2006) has built on and developed this research to
create a desistance paradigm. The desistance paradigm
emphasizes the involvement of the offender in his own prog-
ress toward desistance and the need to work through partner-
ship, collaboration, negotiation, and an emphasis on strengths.
Desistance is an active process, involving the building of social
capital and the support of criminal justice practitioners; it is not
simply a program that can be imposed on an individual to
change their thinking. Crucially, what makes desistance
research work in applied criminology is its explicit drawing of
links to practice and its desire to provide a framework for both
practitioners and policy makers (see McNeill, 2006;Farrall and
Calverley, 2006).
A further approach to the application of criminology that
avoids the simply technicist use of programmed interventions
and that considers wider social justice and relational issues is
restorative justice. Restorative justice will be discussed in the
next section, within the context of how criminology can be
applied to respond to victims of crime.
What Is to Be Done on Behalf of the Victims of Crime?
Criminology, and specifically the subdiscipline of victimology,
has had a particular influence in the increased importance
given to the needs of victims of crime in the criminal justice
system. By the end of the 1970s, “many diverse forces had
834 Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy

converged to draw attention to the neglected role and impor-
tance of the victim in the justice system”(Strang, 2001: 72).
These forces, from within and outside criminology, included
(1) the rise of the feminist movement, which highlighted
important issues around particular ‘hidden’crimes including
rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and child abuse;
(2) efforts to establish children’s rights, which increased
acknowledgment that children were particularly vulnerable to
victimization; (3) the introduction of victimization surveys,
which showed that crime was unreported and grossly under-
estimated, thus highlighting the difficulties and distrust of the
justice system felt by many crime victims; (4) the rise of victim
compensation initiated; and finally (5) the introduction of
legal and social reforms aimed at protecting and helping crime
victims (see Goodey, 2004;Spalek, 2006 for a more detailed
overview).
As these developments in the victim movement progressed
during the 1980s, the rise of consumerism resulted in agencies
being directed to care about the lay people using their
“services”(Mawby and Walklate, 1994: 81; Simmonds, 2009).
Until then, responding to victims involved providing degrees of
compensation for physical injury, including medical services
and income maintenance or cash benefits, but ignored those
needs that arose as a result of mental or emotional harm
(Webster, 1994). Initiatives were subsequently devised to
provide a service to victim ‘consumers,’victim advocacy groups
enjoyed a more significant status, and ‘service delivery’targets
were used to monitor whether or not the structural and
systematic problems encountered by victims were being
addressed.
While the ‘victim movement’and rise of consumerism have
certainly marked an important change within criminal justice,
the extent to which this can be said to have improved the plight
of victims is still subject to considerable debate. The work of
two critical scholars may be drawn on here to illustrate the
point further. Nils Christie, a Norwegian criminologist, has
substantially shaped how we think about who victims are and
how they are treated by the criminal justice system. In 1977,
Christie suggested that victims had their ‘conflict’stolen by the
criminal justice system, and in 1986 he argued that not all
individuals are able to acquire legitimate victim status –the less
‘ideal’a victim was the less ‘justice’they received from the
criminal justice process.
Later, Robert Elias (1993) contended that victims are often
manipulated by governments to achieve punitive aims. This
reality can leave the victim feeling bewildered in which justice
is equated with severe sentencing as opposed to tangible
outcomes for their suffering or losses. Elias (1990) went so far
as to say that the victim movement in the United States could
no longer be classified as a social movement at all, so
completely had it been corrupted by right-wing political
forces. However, this cooption can take other forms as well.
Spalek (2006), for example, draws attention to how Victim
Support in England and Wales has increasingly been seen as
an adjunct to the formal justice system because of its success
in securing a place at the center of government policy, casting
other victims’groups such as rape crisis centers to the
margins.
To further illustrate some of these practices, two important
developments will now be reviewed: restorative justice, and the
legal provisions, which cover the treatment of victims and
victim participation within the criminal justice system.
Restorative Justice
Although the recent origins of restorative justice are widely
contested (Clamp, 2014), most agree that the inherent failings
of criminal justice created an impetus for alternative models to
be devised. The emergence of restorative justice around the
same time as the apparent ‘demise’of the rehabilitative ideal
(or the etiological and penal crises) is perhaps unsurprising as it
mirrors objections to state monopoly; questions the role of the
professional; and seeks to ‘rebalance’responses to crime so that
the views of the victim, the offender, and the wider community
are taken into consideration. As such, it departs from current
trends of ‘punitive populism’and ‘crime control’outlined in
the previous sections in preferring humanitarian notions of
restoration and reintegration.
Perhaps, the most significant theorist in this area is John
Braithwaite who put forward the idea of reintegrative shaming,
whereby the actions of the offender are denounced, but not the
offender (Braithwaite, 1989). During the process, the offender
is encouraged to acknowledge wrongdoing and make amends
for his or her actions by responding to the harm caused to the
victim, “thus demonstrating that he or she remains part of the
law-abiding community and recognises its norms of acceptable
behaviour”(Roche, 2003: 29). Reintegration not only places
a requirement on the offender, but also on his/her family and
other agencies in supporting the offender to overcome the
underlying causes of the offending, which may stem from
a variety of practical, emotional, and/or psychological need.
This work, from Braithwaite and others, is one of the strongest
recent examples of criminological insights being applied in
practice.
Experimentation with processes that provide both victims
and offenders with an active role in the resolution of their
offences can be traced back to victim and offender reconcilia-
tion programs that originated in Kitchener, Ontario in the late
1970s (Zehr, 1990;Galaway and Hudson, 1996). Until recently,
restorative justice has, for the most part, operated on the
margins of the criminal justice system offering no real challenge
to the dominant law and order ideology that prevails in many
Western societies (Garland, 2001). It was not until the 1980s
that the increased status of both the ‘victim’and the ‘commu-
nity’contributed to a reconsideration of the role of the state in
the resolution of offences (Van Ness, 1996;Albrecht, 1999;
Zauberman, 2000;Zedner, 2002). At this point, the restorative
justice experiment extended to the reform of youth justice
systems on the basis of restorative justice processes and princi-
ples such as in New Zealand, Northern Ireland, and South Africa
(see Clamp, 2008;O’Mahony et al., 2012), experimentation by
the police (see Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003;Moore and
Forsythe, 1995;Paterson and Clamp, 2012), and various
communities (see Clamp and Paterson, 2011).
Adversarial approaches in criminal justice are often
perceived as a zero-sum game between victims and offenders;
thus restorative processes are increasingly vulnerable to coop-
tion by the system. Restorative justice is susceptible to degen-
erating into a shaming ceremony in which wrongdoers are not
reintegrated, but stigmatized and humiliated and where victims
Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice 835
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy

are used as pawns to bring about change in the offender
(McCold, 2002). Restorative justice can also have a tendency to
endorse similar stereotypical notions of victimhood as the
traditional criminal justice system (Walklate, 2005;Young,
2002). It is an alternative to formal justice, yet relies on
established legal definitions of victims and victimization
(Pavlich, 2005).
Developments in Victim Policy
International instruments have had considerable influence on
the treatment and position of victims within the criminal
justice process and the United Nations Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power
(1985) is the most influential of these. The Declaration is not
legally binding but can be used as a ‘benchmark’to measure
domestic policy progress (Van Dijk, 1989: 12), and its princi-
ples have become staples of policy discussion. These include
access to justice, provision of information, fair treatment, and
assistance in both formal and/or informal procedures. This has
provided the impetus for a worldwide trend of designing and
implementing victim rights charters, serving as official
acknowledgment that victims have been marginalized and
adversely treated by criminal justice agencies leading to
secondary victimization (Spalek, 2006). The introduction of
charters is a positive step for victims, but the use of the phrase
‘victims’rights’can unduly raise expectations that victims are
being empowered in some significant way (Fenwick, 1995).
Victims’rights legislation can communicate the services that
victims can expect to receive from agencies of the criminal
justice system (Spalek, 2006;Wolhuter et al., 2009) thus
encouraging victims to think of themselves as individual
consumers (Bennett, 2007). Such an approach reduces the
potential for significant systemic change to occur so when
victims are unhappy with the service that they receive, they are
only entitled to make complaints –there is no mechanism
through which they can enforce their rights. Changes in policy
and practice that have been implemented across agencies of
the criminal justice system under the guise of development of
a‘victim perspective’or ‘victim rights’have not necessarily led
to significant improvements for victims (Spalek, 2006).
Promoting victims’rights might lead to giving victims a more
active role in the criminal justice system such as by participating
in prosecution or sentencing decisions. Many countries have
now introduced victim impact statements, allowing victims to
explain the impact of the crime on them. Proponents of this
approach argue that victim involvement can increase prosecu-
tion efficiency, improve sentencing effectiveness, and increase
victim satisfaction (McLeod, 1986;Kelly, 1987;Erez, 1990).
However, critics are wary of the use of victim impact statements
to legitimize a punitive stance against offenders (Ashworth,
1998) and have highlighted that the process can create
unachievable expectations among crime victims regarding their
influence over sentencing decisions (Fattah, 1986).
In a similar way as discussed previously with regard to
offenders, applied criminology has been able to claim an
influence over changes in approaches to victims in the criminal
justice system in the recent decades, while also maintaining
a critical stance over the meaning and consequences of some of
these changes.
Conclusion
Applied criminology is a term now in widespread use in
program titles, conference programs, and names of research
centers, and the terminology sits alongside the applied
iteration of other disciplines such as applied sociology or
applied forensic science. The use of the term ‘applied
criminology,’however, has neither been accompanied by
concerted attempts to define the term, nor are there leading
scholars who prominently declare themselves as applied
criminologists. It is perhaps due to the nature of the crimi-
nological discipline that the boundaries around applied
criminology are so unclear; in a sense all criminology is
practical and applied, just as all criminology is reflective and
theoretical.
This article has outlined how criminology has been applied
to the problem of what to do about crime, to work with
offenders, and to responding to the needs of victims. Punitive
strategies remain popular with politicians and the public, but
they have little impact on crime rates. Police practice is held to
account both by criminological scholars and researchers and
increasingly by contributions from criminology to police
training. Research insights inform the nature of the work
carried out with offenders and contribute both to the nature of
the interventions and, more recently, to the way objectives are
set and notions of success are framed. Work with victims is
more prominent and better funded than it was a few decades
ago. However, victims’emotions have been translated into
individual need using the discourses of consumerism and
active citizenship so, although they are acknowledged, victims’
needs are framed and used according to the bureaucratic and
political goals that prevail.
Criminologists are concerned about how their work is
received by wider society and the weight given to their
research findings and insights. Two recent attempts to
conceptualize this relationship between criminology and the
public provide assistance in determining the nature of applied
criminology. Braithwaite (2011:137)askscriminology
scholars to be ‘sparkers,’stimulating debate and providing
ideas for the players in policy and practice. Loader and
Sparks (2010: 124) suggest that the role of the criminologist
in policy formation is that of the democratic underlaborer,
promoting a better political and policy understanding of
crimeandtheresponsetoit.McNeill (2011) observed that
such a role could also be played by criminology in relation to
practice and, that, perhaps, is the place of applied criminology
–to spark ideas and inform the practice of those who work
within criminal justice, particularly in direct work with
offenders and victims.
See also: Applied Sociology; Crime and Criminal Justice:
Applied Research from Routine Monitoring to Evidence-Based
Practices; Crime, Desistance, and Persistence; Crime,
Sociology of; Crime: Knowledge about and Prevalence;
Criminal Justice, Sociology of; Deterrence Theory: Crime; Mass
Imprisonment and Its Consequences; Police, Sociology of;
Policing; Prevention of Crime and Delinquency; Re-entry and
Reintegration After Incarceration; Social Justice and Criminal
Justice.
836 Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy

Bibliography
Albrecht, H., 1999. Countries in transition: effects of political, social and economic
change on crime and criminal Justice –sanctions and their implementation.
European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 7 (4), 448–479.
Ashworth, A., 1998. Victims’rights, defendants’rights and criminal procedure. In:
Paper Presented to the International Conference on Integrating Victim Perspectives
in Criminal Justice, in York, 17–18 July 1998.
Bauman, Z., 2001. Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Bazemore, G., Griffiths, C., 2003. Police reform, restorative justice and restorative
policing. Police Practice and Research 4 (4), 335–346.
Bennett, C., 2007. Satisfying the needs and interests of victims. In: Johnstone, G.,
Van Ness, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice. Willan Publishing,
Collumpton.
BOCSAR, 2013. Official website: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/bocsar_index.
html (accessed 03.12.13.).
Bottoms, A., 1995. The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In:
Clarkson, C., Morgan, R. (Eds.), The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Bowling, B., Phillips, C., 2002. Racism, Crime and Justice. Longman, London.
Braithwaite, J., 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Braithwaite, J., 2011. Opportunities and dangers of capitalist criminology. In:
Parmentier, S., Walgrave, L., Aertsen, I., Maesschalck, J., Paoli, L. (Eds.), The
Sparking Discipline of Criminology. Leuven University Press, Leuven.
Canton, R., Yates, J., 2008. Applied criminology. In: Stout, B., Yates, J., Williams, B.
(Eds.), Applied Criminology. Sage Publications, London.
Carlen, P., 2013. Against rehabilitation: for reparative justice. Criminal Justice Matters
91 (1), 32–33.
Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., 2002. The Penal System: An Introduction. Sage Publications,
London.
Cesaroni, C., Doob, A., 2003. The decline in support for penal welfarism: evidence of
support among the elite for punitive segregation. British Journal of Criminology 43
(2), 434–441.
Christie, N., 1986. The ideal victim. In: Fattah, E. (Ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim
Policy. Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Christie, N., 1977. Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology 17 (1),
1–15.
Clamp, K., 2014. Restorative Justice in Transition. Routledge, London.
Clamp, K., 2008. Assessing alternative forms of localised justice in post-conflict
societies –youth justice in Northern Ireland and South Africa. In: Frenkel, D.,
Gerner-Beuerle, C. (Eds.), Selected Essays on Current Legal Issues. ATINER,
Athens.
Clamp, K., Paterson, C., 2011. Rebalancing criminal justice: potentials and pitfalls for
community neighbourhood panels. British Journal of Community Justice 9 (2),
21–35.
Cohen, S., 1985. Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification.
Polity Press, Oxford.
Cohen, S., 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. MacGibbon, London.
Crawford, A., 2008. Refiguring the community and professional in policing and criminal
justice: some questions of legitimacy. In: Shapland, J. (Ed.), Justice, Community
and Civil Society: A Contested Terrain. Willan Publishing, Devon.
Elias, R., 1993. Victims Still: The Political Manipulation of Crime Victims. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, California.
Elias, R., 1990. Which victim movement? The politics of victim policy. In: Lurigio, A.,
Skogan, W., Davis, R. (Eds.), Victims and Criminal Justice. Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, California.
Erez, E., 1990. Victim participation in sentencing: rhetoric and reality. Journal of
Criminal Justice 18 (1), 19–31.
Eterno, J., Silverman, E., 2012. The Crime Numbers Game: Management by
Manipulation. CRC Press Inc, New York.
Farrall, S., Calverley, A., 2006. Understanding Desistance from Crime. Open University
Press, Maidenhead.
Fattah, E., 1986. From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. Pagrave Macmillan, London.
Feeley, M., Simon, J., 1992. The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of
corrections and its implications. Criminology 30 (4), 449–474.
Fenwick, H., 1995. Rights of victims in the criminal justice system: rhetoric or reality?
Criminal Law Review 843–853.
Galaway, B., Hudson, J., 1996. Restorative Justice: International Perspectives.
Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
Garland, D., 2001. The Culture of Control. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Goodey, J., 2004. Victims and Victimology: Research, Policy and Practice. Pearson
Education, Canada.
Hobsbawm, E., 1995. Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991.
Abacus, London.
Kelly, D., 1987. Victims. Wayne Law Review 34, 69–86.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., Wilks, J., 1975. The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment:
A Survey of Treatment Valuation Studies. Praeger, New York.
Loader, I., Sparks, R., 2010. Public Criminology. Routledge, London.
McCold, P., 2002. Evaluation of a restorative milieu: CSF Buxmont School/Day
Treatment programs 1999–2001 evaluation outcome technical report. In: Paper
Presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
http://www.realjustice.org/library/erm.html (accessed 28.11.06.).
McEvoy, K., 2007. Beyond legalism: towards a thicker understanding of transitional
Justice. Journal of Law and Society 34 (4), 411–440.
McLeod, M., 1986. Victim participation at sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin 22,
501–517.
McNeill, F., 2011. Review: public criminology? Ian loader and Richard Sparks.
Probation Journal 58 (1), 84–87.
McNeill, F., 2006. A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and
Criminal Justice 6, 37–60.
Mackenzie, D.L., 2000. Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime and
Delinquency 46 (4), 457–471.
Martinson, R., 1979. New findings, new views: a note of caution regarding sentence
reform. Hostra Law Review 7, 242–258.
Maruna, S., 2001. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Re-build Their Lives.
American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Mawby, R., Walklate, S., 1994. Critical Victimology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, J., 1989. Does nothing work? In: Priestley, P., Vanstone, M. (Eds.), Offenders or
Citizens?: Readings in Rehabilitation. Willan, Cullompton.
Moore, D., Forsythe, L., 1995. A New Approach to Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of
Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A Report to the Criminology Research
Council. Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University-Riverina, Wagga
Wagga, AUS.
Muncie, J., 1998. Deconstructing criminology. Criminal Justice Matters 34 (1), 4–5.
O’Mahony, D., Doak, J., Clamp, K., 2012. The politics of youth justice reform in post-
conflict societies: mainstreaming restorative justice in Northern Ireland and South
Africa. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 63 (2), 269–290.
Paterson, C., Clamp, K., 2012. Exploring recent developments in restorative policing in
England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice 12 (5), 593–611.
Pavlich, G., 2005. The Governing Paradoxes of Restorative Justice. Glasshouse Press,
London.
Roach, K., 2005. Enhancing criminal justice reform, including restorative justice. In:
Paper Presented at the 11th United Nations Congress on ‘Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice’, Bangkok, Thailand April 18–25, 2005 [Online].
Available from: www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/11_un/KENT%20ROACH%
20Speaking%20Notes.pdf (accessed 19.03.09.).
Roberts, C., 2004. Offending behaviour programmes: emerging evidence and impli-
cations for practice. In: Burnett, R., Roberts, C. (Eds.), What Works in Probation
and Youth Justice. Willan, Cullompton.
Roche, D., 2003. Accountability in Restorative Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rotman, E., 1986. Do criminal offenders have a constitutional right to rehabilitation?
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 77 (4), 1023–1068.
Sampson, R., Laub, J., 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points
through Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Scraton, P., 2009. Hillsborough: The Truth. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh and
London.
Simmonds, L., 2009. What victims want! Victim support, an objective or relative:
approach to victims’needs. Social and Public Policy Review 3 (2), 11–29.
Spalek, B., 2006. Crime Victims: Theory, Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Stout, B., Yates, J., Williams, B., 2008. Applied Criminology. Sage Publications,
London.
Strang, H., 2001. The crime victim movement as a force in civil society. In: Strang, H.,
Braithwaite, J. (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Civil Society. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Van Dijk, J., 1989. Benchmarking legislation on crime victims: the UN victims
declaration of 1985. In: Jounsen, M., Shapland, J. (Eds.), Changing Victim Policy:
The United Nations Declaration and Recent Developments in Europe. HEUNI,
Helsinki.
Van Ness, D., 1996. Restorative justice and international human rights. In:
Galaway, B., Hudson, J. (Eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives.
Kugler Publications, Amsterdam.
Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice 837
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy

Walklate, S., 2005. Victimhood as a source of oppression. Social Justice 32,
88–99.
Webster, B., 1994. Government strategies to co-ordinate victims’policies and services
within a crime prevention framework in New Zealand. In: Paper Presented at 8th
International Symposium on Victimology, Adelaide.
Wolhuter, L., Olley, N., Denham, D., 2009. Victimology: Victimisation and Victims
Rights. Routledge, London.
Young, R., 2002. Testing the limits of restorative justice: the case of corporate victims.
In: Hoyle, C., Young, R. (Eds.), New Visions of Crime Victims. Hart Publishing,
Portland, OR.
Young, J., 1988. Radical criminology in Britain: the emergence of a competing
paradigm. British Journal of Criminology 28 (2), 159–183.
Young, R., Matthews, J., 2003. The New Politics of Crime and Punishment. Willan
Publishing, Collumpton.
Zauberman, R., 2000. Victims as consumers of the criminal justice system? In:
Crawford, A., Goodey, J. (Eds.), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal
Justice: International Debates. Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd, Aldershot.
Zedner, L., 2002. Victims. In: Maguire, M., Morgan, R., Reiner, R. (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zehr, H., 1990. Changing Lenses. Herald Press, Pennsylvania.
838 Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 832–838
Author's personal copy