Abstract
Joanne Belknap’s recent ASC presidential address included a critique of Convict Criminology’s activism. A number of concerns were provided, although of particular importance here are, first, Belknap’s concerns regarding the absence of ‘marginalized voices’ in the Convict Criminology network. Second, the issue of defining how non-con academics function as Convict Criminology group members. This paper responds to these criticisms. Specifically, we discuss the question of ‘representation’ in BCC and our attempts to remedy this issue. We also draw attention to the academic activism that British Convict Criminology is conducting in Europe. This includes a detailed discussion of the collaborative research-activist activities that involve non-con as well as ex-con academic network members. We demonstrate how these collaborations explain the vital group membership role that non-con academics assume in the activism of Convict Criminology.
Highlights
Since Convict Criminology’s (CC) emergence in the 1990’s it has been the subject of some criticism and debate
The issue of defining how non-con academics function as Convict Criminology group members
We demonstrate how these collaborations explain the vital group membership role that non-con academics assume in the activism of Convict Criminology
Summary
Since Convict Criminology’s (CC) emergence in the 1990’s it has been the subject of some criticism and debate. Joanne Belknap, in her ASC presidential address (2014) echoed some of these concerns, and added to them questioning both critical criminology’s and Convict Criminology’s role in, as she articulates, ‘criminology activism’. It addresses the issue of non-con academic ‘members’ and how they function as CC group members. As well as considering Belknap’s concerns regarding the absence of ‘marginalized voices’
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have