Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Re-examining Risk and Blame in Penal Controversies: Parole in England and Wales, 2013–2018

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Criminal Justice, Risk and the Revolt against Uncertainty

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society ((PSRCS))

Abstract

This chapter considers the lessons that high-profile controversies in parole in England and Wales might provide for our understanding of dominant conceptions of risk and populism in the sociology of punishment. Sparks’ (Dangerous Offenders: Punishment and Social Order. Routledge, London, 2000) earlier examination of risk and blame in a series of scandals facing English prisons in the mid-1990s is utilized as a point of comparison and a methodological sensitizing device: the former in that this provides us with a means by which to consider what might have changed in the two decades separating these high-profile episodes; the latter in that I seek, as Sparks did, to consider what insights these ‘sorry stories’ might provide for penal theory. I thus discuss broader cultural trends regarding the recognition and involvement of ‘publics’—including victims, families, prisoners and others—in penal policy. I suggest that these developments have implications for our understanding of risk and populism, and the dominant theoretical narratives that have tended to accompany conceptions of these terms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Feeley and Simon (1992, 1994), Garland (2001), Pratt (2000, 2007), Hudson (2003) and Cunneen et al. (2013).

  2. 2.

    For a detailed exposition of the orientations underpinning Sparks’ approach, see Loader and Sparks (2004).

  3. 3.

    The independence of the Parole Board is discussed below. As regards the prison service, it had at that time become an ‘executive agency’, intended to operate as a distinct organization (see Sparks et al. 1996).

  4. 4.

    R (Brooke) v Parole Board (2008) EWCA Civ 29.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., paragraph 78.

  6. 6.

    For detailed discussion of the IPP sentence and its lessons for penal theory, see Annison (2015). For more recent discussion of its ongoing deleterious effects, see, for example, HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation (2016) and Annison and Condry (2019).

  7. 7.

    R (Osborn) v The Parole Board (2013) UKSC 61.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., paragraph 71.

  9. 9.

    Underlining these arguments, in June 2019 Worboys pleaded guilty to four counts of further offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Siddique 2019).

  10. 10.

    R. (DSD and NBV & Ors) v The Parole Board of England and Wales & Ors and John Radford (2018) EWHC (Admin) 694, (2018) 3 W.L.R. 829, Para 154.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., paragraph 159.

  12. 12.

    See, for example, Hinsliff (2018).

  13. 13.

    There were, of course, other perspectives in play, not least the view that Worboys’ release after nearly ten years of imprisonment did not meet the requirements of retributive justice. Nonetheless, such arguments tended to run alongside, rather than clash with, risk-based arguments (see, e.g., Townsend 2018).

  14. 14.

    See also O’Malley (2010: 42).

  15. 15.

    For an illuminating discussion of these developments, and its limited substantive influence in the context of drugs policy, see Monaghan, Wincup and Wicker (2018).

  16. 16.

    We should recognize, however, that Hall’s argument regarding his concerns at what he elsewhere termed the ‘great moving right show’ of the 1970s was not only a consideration of elite political agency, but a compelling consideration of the broader dynamics in play.

  17. 17.

    This political risk was heightened by the Justice Secretary’s widely derided decision not to challenge the Parole Board’s decision himself.

  18. 18.

    And, of course, the more general rise of populist politicians, within broader anti-political sentiment, is of acute concern and the focal point of important scholarly work (see, e.g., Clarke et al. 2018; Mudde 2017).

  19. 19.

    Thanks to Louise Jackson for helping me to develop this observation.

  20. 20.

    See, for example, accounts of criminal justice organizations’ reaction to proposals for a public notification ‘Sarah’s Law’ in England and Wales (Kemshall and Wood 2007).

  21. 21.

    Thanks to Kelly Mackenzie for her exemplary research assistance. Thanks to Nina Jørgensen, Ian Loader, John Pratt and Jordan Anderson for comments on earlier drafts.

References

  • Adams J. (2003) Risk and Morality: Three framing devices In: Doyle A. and Ericson R. V. (eds) Risk and Morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annison H. (2015) Dangerous Politics: Risk, Political Vulnerability, and Penal Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annison H. (2018a) Towards an Interpretive Political Analysis of Penal Policy. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 57(3): 302–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annison H. (2018b) Tracing the Gordian Knot: Indeterminate-Sentenced Prisoners and the Pathologies of English Penal Politics. The Political Quarterly 89(2): 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annison H. and Condry R. (2019) The pains of indeterminate imprisonment for family members. Prison Service Journal 241: 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. (2018) Psychological expert evidence and the Parole Board. Available at: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-31/may-2018/psychological-expert-evidence-and-parole-board.

  • Ashworth A. and Zedner L. (2014) Preventive Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC News. (2018) John Worboys: Victims ‘terrified’ by prison release. BBC News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boin A., Hart P. t., Stern E. and Sundelius B. (2005) The Politics of Crisis Management: Public leadership under pressure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth M. and Kaufman E. (2013) Gender and Punishment. In: Simon J. and Sparks R. (eds) Handbook of Punishment and Society. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms A. (1995) The Philosophy and Politics of Punishment and Sentencing. In: Clarkson C. and Morgan R. (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke L. and Collett S. (2014) Delivering Rehabilitation, Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burman M. and Gelsthorpe L. (2017) Feminist Criminology: Inequalities, powerlessness and justice. In: Liebling A., Maruna S. and McAra L. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 6th ed. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke N., Jennings W., Moss J. and Stoker G. (2018) The Good Politician, Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunneen C., Baldry E., Brown D., Brown M., Schwartz M. and Steel A. (2013) Penal Culture and Hyperincarceration, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M. (1992) Risk and Blame: Essays in cultural theory, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze G. (1995) Postscript on control societies. In: Deleuze G. (ed) Negotiations 1972–1990. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes D. and Morgan R. (1997) Dumping the ‘Hostages to Fortune’? The politics of law and order in post-war Britain. In: Maguire M., Morgan R. and Reiner R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durose C. and Richardson L. (2016) Designing Public Policy for Co-Production, Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzur A. W. (2016) Participatory Innovation in Criminal Justice: Why, how and how far? In: Farrall S., Goldson B., Loader I. and Dockley A. (eds) Justice and Penal Reform. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley M. and Simon J. (1992) The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications. Criminology 30: 449–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley M. and Simon J. (1994) Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law. In: Nelken D. (ed) Futures of Criminology. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgibbon W. (2011) Probation and Social Work on Trial, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbaudo P. (2018) Social media and populism: an elective affinity? Media, Culture & Society 40: 745–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman P., Page J. and Phelps M. (2017) Breaking the Pendulum, Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiney T. (2018) Getting Out: Early Release in England and Wales, 1960–1995, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiney T. and Prison Reform Trust. (2018) Prison Reform Trust response to the Ministry of Justice Review of the Law, Policy and Procedure Relating to Parole Decisions. London: PRT

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall S. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, Basingstoke Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwick N. (2018a) Letter of Resignation from Nick Hardwick to the Secretary of State for Justice. London: Parole Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwick N. (2018b) Professor Nick Hardwick responds to concerns about Worboys’ case. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/professor-nick-hardwick-responds-to-concerns-about-worboys-case

  • Hinsliff G. (2018) John Worboys is to Stay in Prison: But why was release ever recommended? The Guardian. London/Manchester: GMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. (2016) Unintended Consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. London: HMIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Chief Inspector of Probation. (2018) Investigation into the policy and process followed by the victim contact scheme in the case of John Worboys, London: HMIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood C. (2002) The Risk Game and the Blame Game. Government and Opposition 37: 15–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood C. (2011) The Blame Game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle C. (1998) Negotiating Domestic Violence: Police, criminal justice and victims, Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle C. and Zedner L. (2007) Victims, Victimization and Criminal Justice. In: Maguire M., Morgan R. and Reiner R. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson B. (2003) Justice in the Risk Society, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M. (2017a) IPPs, recalls and the future of parole. Available at: www.russellwebster.com/martin-jones2/.

  • Jones M. (2017b) The parole board faces up to new challenges. Available at: www.russellwebster.com/parole-board-50/.

  • Jones M. (2019) Hope for Progress. Inside Time. Available at: https://insidetime.org/parole-revolution-justice-secretary-david-gaukes-landmark-reform/

  • Justice Committee. (2018) Transforming Rehabilitation. London: House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice Committee. (2019) Prison Population 2022: Planning for the future. London: House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall H. and Wood J. (2007) Beyond Public Protection: An examination of community protection and public health approaches to high-risk offenders. Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 7: 203–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Learmont J. (1995) Review of prison service security in England and Wales and the escape from Parkhurst Prison on Tuesday 3rd January 1995. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loader I. (2006) Fall of the ‘Platonic Guardians’: Liberalism, Criminology and Political Responses to Crime in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology 46: 561–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loader I. (2010) Is it NICE? The Appeal, Limits and Promise of Translating a Health Innovation into Criminal Justice. Current Legal Problems 63: 72–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loader I. and Sparks R. (2004) For an Historical Sociology of Crime Policy in England and Wales since 1968. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 7: 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch T. (2016) Co-producing justice sanctions? Citizen perspectives. Criminology & Criminal Justice 16: 431–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill F. (2006) A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management. Criminology and Criminal Justice 6: 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2009) The Future of the Parole Board. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffatt S. (2015) Prospects for a Desistance Agenda. London: Criminal Justice Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan M., Wincup E. and Wicker K. (2018) Experts, Expertise and Drug Policy-making. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 57(3): 422–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde C. (2017) On Extremism and Democracy in Europe, Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mythen G. (2014) Understanding the Risk Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Audit Office. (2017) Investigation into the Parole Board. London: NAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley P. (2010) Crime and Risk, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield N. (2016) Justifying Indefinite Detention - on what grounds? Criminal Law Review 11: 797–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parole Board. (2016) The Parole Board Strategy 2016–2020. Parole Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parole Board. (2018a) Parole Board for England and Wales Annual Reports and Accounts 2017/18. Parole Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parole Board. (2018b) Parole Board for England and Wales Strategy 2018 to 2020 and 18 Month Business Plan April 2018 to September 2019. Parole Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J. (2000) Dangerousness and Modern Society. In: Brown M. and Pratt J. (eds) Dangerous Offenders: Punishment and Social Order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J. (2007) Penal Populism, London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J., Brown D., Brown M. and Hallsworth S. (2005) The New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives, Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prison Reform Trust. (2018) Incentives and Earned Privileges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner R. (2007) Law and order: an honest citizen’s guide to crime and control, Cambridge: Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson G. and Crow I. (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, Research and Practice, London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock P. E. (1998) Murderers, Victims and “Survivors”: The social construction of deviance. British Journal of Criminology 38: 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock P. E. (2004) Constructing Victims’ Rights: The Home Office, New Labour, and victims, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M. (2003) Penal Policy and Political Culture in England and Wales: Four essays on policy and process, Winchester: Waterside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson R. and Laub J. (1993) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through the Life Course, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serisier T. (2018) Speaking Out: Feminism, rape and narrative politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapland J. and Bottoms A. (2017) Desistance from Crime and Implications for Offender Rehabilitation. In: Liebling A., Maruna S. and McAra L. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 6th ed. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddique H. (2019) John Worboys admits drugging four more women. The Guardian. 20 June 2019 ed. London/Manchester: GNM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon J. (1998) Managing the Monstrous: Sex offenders and the New Penology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 4: 452–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks R. (2000a) Perspectives on Risk and Penal Politics. In: Hope T. and Sparks R. (eds) Crime, Risk and Insecurity. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks R. (2000b) Risk and Blame in Criminal Justice Controversies: British Press Coverage and Official Discourse on Prison Security (1993–6). In: Brown M. and Pratt J. (eds) Dangerous Offenders: Punishment and Social Order. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks R., Bottoms A. and Hay W. (1996) Prisons and the Problem of Order, Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C. (2017) #Republic, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend M. (2018) John Worboys: fury over release prompts parole system overhaul. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright L., Harriott P. and Saajedi S. (2019) What Do You Need to Make the Best Use of Your Time in Prison? London: Prison Reform Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walklate S., Maher J., McCulloch J., Fitz-Gibbon K. and Beavis K. (2019) Victim stories and victim policy: Is there a case for a narrative victimology? Crime, Media, Culture Online First.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward T. and Maruna S. (2007) Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk Paradigm, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock J. (1994) The Escape from Whitemoor Prison on Friday 9th September 1994. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf L. J. (1991) Prison Disturbances April 1990. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner L. (2009) Fixing the Future? The pre-emptive turn in criminal justice. In: McSherry B., Norrie A. W. and Bronitt S. (eds) Regulating Deviance: the redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southampton Law School, Southampton University, Southampton, UK

    Harry Annison

Authors
  1. Harry Annison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harry Annison .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    John Pratt  & Jordan Anderson  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Annison, H. (2020). Re-examining Risk and Blame in Penal Controversies: Parole in England and Wales, 2013–2018. In: Pratt, J., Anderson, J. (eds) Criminal Justice, Risk and the Revolt against Uncertainty. Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37948-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37948-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37947-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37948-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation