The Changing Face of Risk

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Criminology book series (BRIEFSCRIMINOL, volume 1)

Abstract

The previous chapters have highlighted that much of the criticism arising from control orders stems from their lack of adherence to procedural safeguards. Yet, both the British and Australian governments have described control orders as a necessary tool to protect their citizens from the enormous and uncertain risk posed by terrorism. Indeed, risk is the underlying rationale and justification for the state’s protective mandate (Aradau and van Munster 2007; Feeley and Simon 1992), and its use of exceptional measures. Modern states have a duty to protect their citizens (Ashworth 2009), but there has been a long debate about how they go about doing so. In recent years, risk has evolved, moving toward assessment and management of risky populations, introducing a more preventive focus in criminal justice. The rise of actuarial approaches in criminal justice has also filtered into the debate on terrorism, preventive legislation being just one example thereof. This chapter expands on risk as it applies to terrorism and the development and implementation of (pre-emptive) Anti-Terrorism legislation.

Keywords

Criminal Justice Preventive Focus Control Order Risk Society Uncertain Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackerman, B. (2003). The emergency constitution. Yale Law Journal, 113, 1029–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amoore, L., & De Goede, M. (2008). Introduction: Governing by risk in the war on terror. In L. Amoore & M. De Goede (Eds.), Risk and the war on terror. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Aradau, C., & van Munster, R. (2007). Governing terrorism through risk: Taking precautions, (un)knowing the future. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 89–115. doi: 10.1177/1354066107074290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aradau, C., & van Munster, R. (2009). Exceptionalism and the ‘War on Terror’. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashworth, A. (2009). Criminal law, human rights and preventative justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Oxford and Portland OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2007). Defending the criminal law: Reflections on the changing character of crime, procedure, and sanctions. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, U. (2002). The terrorist threat: World risk society revisited. Theory Culture Society, 19(4), 39–55. doi: 10.1177/0263276402019004003.Google Scholar
  10. Bonner, D. (2006). Checking the executive? Detention without trial, control orders, due process and human rights. European Public Law, 12(1), 45–71.Google Scholar
  11. Borgers, M., & van Sliedregt, E. (2009). The meaning of the precautionary principle for the assessment of criminal measures in the fight against terrorism. Erasmus Law Review, 2(2), 171–195.Google Scholar
  12. Boyle, K. (1982). Human rights and political resolution in northern ireland. Yale Journal of World and Public Order, 9, 156–177.Google Scholar
  13. Braithwaite, J. (2000). The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 222–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bronitt, S., & McSherry, B. (2010). Principles of criminal law (3rd ed.). Sydney: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  15. De Goede, M., & Randalls, S. (2009). Precaution, preemption: Arts and technologies of the actionable future. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(5), 859–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dershowitz, A. M. (2006). Preemption: A knife that cuts both ways. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  17. Donohue, L. K. (2000). Civil liberties, terrorism, and liberal democracy: Lessons from the United Kingdom. BCSIA discussion paper 2000–2005. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  18. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and cultural theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1994). Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In D. Nelken (Ed.), The future of criminology (pp. 173–200). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  23. Gani, M. (2008). How does it end? Reflections on Completed prosecutions under Australia’s Anti-Terrorism legislation. In M. Gani & P. Mathew (Eds.), Fresh perspectives on the war on terror. Canberra: ANU E Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goldsmith, A. (2008). The governance of terror: Precautionary logic and counterterrorist law reform after September 11. Law and Policy, 30(2), 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gross, O. (2003). Chaos and rules: Should responses to violent crises always be constitutional? The Yale Law Journal, 112(5), 1011–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gross, O. (2006). What “Emergency” regime? Constellations, 13(1), 74–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1351-0487.2006.00441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gross, O., & Ní Aoláin, F. (2006). Law in times of crisis: Emergency powers in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hindess, B. (1996). Discourses of power. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  30. Hudson, B. (2003). Justice in the risk society. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Hudson, B. (2009). Justice in a time of terror. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 702–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johns, F. (2005). Guántanamo bay and the annihilation of the exception. European Journal of International Law, 16(4), 613–635. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chi135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, S., Bowers, K., Birks, D. J., & Pease, K. (2009). Predictive mapping: Accuracy for different units of analysis and the role of the environmental backcloth. In D. Weisburd, W. Bernasco, & G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in it’s place: Units of analysis in spatial crime research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, L. W., & Gibbs Van Brunschot, E. (2009). The risk in crime. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  35. Lazar, N. C. (2006). Must exceptionalism prove the rule? An angle on emergency government in the history of political thought. Politics & Society, 34(2), 245–275. doi: 10.1177/0032329205285406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lendermann, M. (2009). Prävention durch Recht—Kann normative auf terrorismus reagiert werden? (Prevention through law: Can one react normatively to terrorism?). Humbolt Forum Recht (12), 163-175.Google Scholar
  37. Levi, R. (2009). Making counter-law. British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 131–149. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azn080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2002). Contemporary landscapes of crime, order and control: Governance, risk and globalization. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The oxford handbook of criminology (3rd ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lowry, D. R. (1976). Internment: Detention without trial in Northern Ireland. Human Rights, 5, 261–331.Google Scholar
  41. Lynch, A. (2006). Legislating with urgency—the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act [No 1] 2005. Melbourne University Law Review, 30(3), 747–781.Google Scholar
  42. Lynch, A., McGarrity, N., & Williams, G. (2010). The emergence of a ‘culture of control’. In N. McGarrity, A. Lynch, & G. Williams (Eds.), Counter-terrorism and beyond: The culture of law and Justice after 9/11. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. McCulloch, J. (2006). Australia’s Anti-Terrorism legislation and the jack thomas case. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18(2), 357–365.Google Scholar
  44. McCulloch, J. (2009). Precrime: Imagining future crime and a new space for criminology. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference, Melbourne. http://arts.monash.edu.au/criminology/c3-conference-proceedings/anz-critical-criminology-conference-2009-proceedings.pdf.
  45. McCulloch, J., & Pickering, S. (2009). Pre-crime and counter-terrorism: Imagining Future crime in the ‘War on Terror’. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 628–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGarrity, N., & Williams, G. (2010). When extraordinary measures become normal: Pre-emption in counter-terrorism and other laws. In N. McGarrity, A. Lynch, & G. Williams (Eds.), Counter-terrorism and beyond: The culture of law and justice after 9/11. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. McSherry, B. (2004). Terrorism offences in the criminal code: broadening the boundaries of australian criminal laws. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 27(2), 354–372.Google Scholar
  48. McSherry, B. (2006). Sex, drugs and ‘evil’ souls: The growing reliance on preventive detention regimes. Monash University Law Review, 32(2), 237–274.Google Scholar
  49. Michaelsen, C. (2005). International human rights on trial—the United Kingdom’s and Australia’s legal response to 9/11. Sydney Law Review, 25(3), 275–303.Google Scholar
  50. Michaelsen, C. (2008). The proportionality principle in the context of Anti-Terrorism laws: An inquiry into the boundaries between human rights law and public policy. In M. Gani & P. Mathew (Eds.), Fresh perspectives on the ‘War on Terror’ (pp. 109–124). Canberra: ANU E Press.Google Scholar
  51. Moran, J. (2007). Generating more heat than light? Debates on civil liberties in the UK. Policing, 1(1), 80–93. doi: 10.1093/police/pam009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morris, N. (1951). The habitual criminal. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  53. Mythen, G., & Walklate, S. (2006). Criminology and terrorism. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 379–398. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azi074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pratt, J. (1997). Governing the dangerous: Dangerousness, law and social change. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  55. Raulff, U. (2004). An Interview with Giorgio Agamben. German Law Journal, 5(5), 609–614.Google Scholar
  56. Rose, N. (2000). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rumsfeld, D. (2002). US Department of Defence news briefing—secretary Rumsfeld and gen. Myers.Google Scholar
  58. Shearing, C. (2001). Punishment and the changing face of the governance. Punishment and Society, 3(2), 203–220.Google Scholar
  59. Stern, J., & Wiener, J. B. (2006). Precaution against terrorism. Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), 393–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1003–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walker, C. (2011). Terrorism and the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Welch, M. (2007). Sovereign impunity in america’s war on terror: Examining reconfigured power and the absence of accountability. Crime, Law and Social Change, 47(3), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zedner, L. (2006). Neither safe nor sound? The perils and possibilities of risk. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48(3), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zedner, L. (2007). Pre-crime and post-criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 11, 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zedner, L. (2009). Fixing the future? The pre-emptive turn in criminal justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Oxford and Portland OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Criminology and Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia

Personalised recommendations