Editorial

Citation

Ireland, J.L. and Birch, P. (2015), "Editorial", Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-07-2015-0027

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Volume 1, Issue 3.

Jane L. Ireland and Philip Birch

Welcome to the current edition of JCRPP. This edition has sought to bring together a range of different methods and approaches that can be applied to topics of relevance within the scope of this journal. Papers within this issue present a rapid-based evidence assessment, partial least square analysis, primary interview data incorporated with a thematic review and other methods, a record-based review and a research synthesis incorporating a gap analysis. By presenting a range of methods we hope to illustrate the value of presenting research and scholarly opinion beyond a traditional quantitative and/or qualitative approach. This we feel serves to highlight how eclectic a discipline we work within and the full range of approaches that can be of value to furthering knowledge, enhancing practice and stimulating debate. The latter is crucial. Where some approaches may present as less "scientific" by traditional standards, their role is just as important in the area of promoting interest and discussion and contributing to future more traditionally defined research, as well as revealing to other potential authors the range of methods and approaches that can be of scholarly value.

Consequently we hope your interest is ignited by what the current edition has to offer. We commence with what we considered closest to a more traditional method of review inquiry, namely, a rapid-based evidence assessment offered by Lynn Stewart and Renee Gobeil. This paper explores the state of the field regarding correctional interventions for women offenders. By thorough analysis and close attention to a strict methodological design, the review reveals empirical value for substance abuse treatment programmes, gender-responsive programmes that focus on positive aspects of presentation and community follow-up intervention. The need for improvement in studies examining this topic is noted, with commentary on the importance of improved design and more attention to the components of programmes that are promoting positive outcomes. We would argue that such a view could be applied beyond intervention for women offenders and could apply to correctional programmes overall. Furthermore, the view regarding a focus on positive aspects of presentation is also in keeping with a general "positive psychology" movement and we would argue that the importance with regards to aspects of this work (i.e. promoting resilience, identifying and enhancing strengths as opposed to focusing solely on weaknesses) has value across programmes, regardless of sex. What is certainly evidenced from Stewart and Gobeil's paper, however, is its contribution to stimulating such discussions and in raising questions that encourage reflection on the state of our programme-outcome research across the sector and not just with women offenders.

Keeping with the theme of reviewing areas of limited academic inquiry, we then present a record-based review on mass shootings, authored by Tim Prenzler and colleagues. There appears a range of factors that have led to reduced enquiry into this important topic, potentially focused on considerable variation on how such incidents are recorded and differences between countries in firearm regulations, which has limited comparison across countries. The current paper focuses on the incidence of mass shootings across two countries, USA and Australia, over a period of 33 years, examining where and how firearm controls and other protective factors could be effective. What is of particular value is the focus of this paper in considering this in a context of changing firearm regulations.

We were also struck by the difficulties this paper reports on with reference to gathering information on this topic, with multiple sources having to be relied upon and the absence of a single repository. Although recognising the limitations with the data set, particularly with regards to the increased number of US incidents compared to Australian, the paper nevertheless provides some depth of information concerning the characteristics of mass shootings and is able to demonstrate an association between more restrictive firearm regulations and a decline in mass shootings in both countries. Although this may appear an obvious result, the remaining question is why there continues to be an increased number of mass shootings in the USA compared to Australia despite such shared restrictive regulations. In attempting to explain this, the authors reflect on what appears to be country-based differences in beliefs underpinning why firearms are held; with Australia reported to view the retention of a firearm as a privilege and the USA viewing it as a constitutional right.

This paper demonstrates the theme of the current JCRRP issue well by highlighting the importance of more empirical research in this area. However, we were surprised by the difficulties noted not only in collecting data on mass shootings but also by those in defining a "mass shooting" with regards to how many fatalities this should comprise. This is perhaps one of the most crucial elements to consider since empirical research will be beholden to an agreed definition, an issue which the current paper has highlighted well.

There is perhaps a natural progression from this paper to that presented by Dae Woon Kim on the development of the private security industry in South Korea. It progresses from the previous paper since the development of such an industry is in response to a need to protect individuals and keep them safe from risk, and also highlights the issue of required regulation more broadly. The author presents an interesting methodological approach to this topic by outlining a review informed by history that comprises a synthesis of available evidence and a gap analysis. What this work also highlights is the importance of gathering a range of sources as part of such a review and not restricting it to easily accessible articles, such as journals. It is clear that a review of this particular area could not progress if focus was restricted to such traditional resources.

A particularly interesting aspect emerging from this paper is the worth of the private security industry in South Korea and readers may be left wondering if this worth (2.7 billion per annum) is specific to South Korea or if it parallels with other countries. There is perhaps a need to understand this industry beyond South Korea, coupled with a deeper understanding of the function it serves, the individuals it employs and how they are recruited.

The private security industry, as outlined in this paper, almost feels like a new element of "policing" that has been neglected by study in some part, perhaps due to its non-public sector basis. Yet this is a detailed industry involved in a range of policing issues that cannot be ignored. The reasons as to why this industry has seemingly increased would be of interest to consider, particularly in relation to whether this is associated with increased perceptions of feeling unsafe, at risk and/or displeasure with existing public security services. The author also comments in detail on the value of regulation. This is a topic that resonates; you cannot help but reflect on whether or not there is legitimisation occurring of unregulated individuals who are being afforded considerable responsibility for the safety of others.

Continuing with the theme of private sector, the ensuing paper by Alison Wakefield and colleagues focuses on the approach of dealing with fraud and its move away from public sanctions towards private solutions. The authors examine this topic using a mixed methodology. Like the preceding paper it outlines a move away from relying on a public service solution. In essence we now have organisations serving their own solutions to those considered culpable of fraud, and in doing so removing the role of the criminal justice system. The authors argue this is a result of the perceived inability of the criminal justice system to dealing effectively and in a timely manner with fraud as a result of being overwhelmed by demand. Consequently, the paper presents an analysis of the changing approach in dealing with fraud and, like the prior paper, describes the range of solutions being taken by organisations to manage what is potentially considered a failure in the criminal justice system.

Through interviews with counter fraud practitioners in the UK, secondary sources and case examples, the authors demonstrate the creative approaches currently being undertaken by organisations to avoid reliance on the Criminal Justice System. Although commendably creative, the threat such a non-regulated approach could pose to a traditional view of justice is well recognised; there is a lack of consistency and no rehabilitation component. The latter is a significant omission and does nothing to support offenders involved in fraud as a result of challenging life circumstances or difficulties that could be resolved with support.

The authors also note, as the preceding paper does, the importance of regulation for this developing private industry. This is certainly a recurrent theme and when you have a non-legitimised "justice" system attempting to work outside of the traditional and legitimate Criminal Justice System difficulties in the absence of regulation could ensue. The question concerning the function of such a private sector approach to fraud arises from this paper; without rehabilitation, recidivism of these "offenders" will likely continue.

Recidivism is indeed a focus in our final paper, where Aminu Musa Ahmed focus on a narrow and under-researched topic, namely, the potential role of ostracism on recidivism rates of ex-offenders. It is presented here in the edition as a warning as to what can happen when rehabilitation is either absent or fails to account for the need to integrate offenders back into communities. The author presents their case using a partial least square analysis, a more classic quantitative approach but used creatively. Ahmed argues convincingly for the importance of recognising that ex-prisoners are among the most excluded and disadvantaged in society, with imprisonment contributing to this.

You cannot read this paper without questioning whether prisons are punishing and thereby weakening the existence of offending behaviour or are they in fact becoming part of the problem of recidivism by facilitating and promoting exclusion and disadvantage. The importance of ensuring integration of "ex-offenders" is a key message from this paper and it will undoubtedly be a finding of interest to other countries. Indeed, the notion of an integration programme is rare and it brings the edition back to the initial paper where Lynn Stewart and Renee Gobeil highlighted the importance of community-based interventions. What the work of Aminu Musa Ahmed is suggesting is a marked enhancement of this community approach towards a true integration for those leaving custody.

We could not help but reflect, however, on how this integration may require a change in terminology with regards to how "ex-offenders" are referred to. There is a move developing to encourage and start using the term "people with convictions" since "ex-offender" is considered dehumanising and stigmatising by those enduring life with such a label. Indeed, if recidivism is to be positively impacted on, the whole question of what this means and the language we use to convey it becomes essential. It is not enough to simply rehabilitate but also to reintegrate, which includes how we approach and describe those affected by prison, or indeed any other criminal sanction. The importance of doing so in a way which includes individuals in society and does not exclude is perhaps a starting point, with this captured well in the following quote:

When I was released from prison in 1996, I had no idea that the label "ex-offender" would be used against me for the rest of my life. In fact, it came to shape the hearts and minds of the many people who discriminated against me, as CRB [security] checks saw my many application forms drop into HR dustbins (Charlie Ryder, 2013:

http://blogs.iriss.org.uk/discoveringdesistance/2013/02/11/820/

, accessed 17.07.2015).