The Mannheim Centre for Criminology was set up in November 1990, named in honour of Hermann Mannheim (see Herman Mannheim: a biographical note|).
News
31 January 2013
In memorium-
It is with deep regret that we announce the death of Professor Stanley Cohen.
David Downes wrote an appreciation of Stan on the occasion of him being awarded the outstanding achievement in criminology by the British Society of Criminology in June 2009 which is reproduced here. David has also written an appreciation which can be located at Professor Cohen’s staff page on the Mannheim web site.
First of all, congratulations to the British Society of Criminology for having inaugurated this award for the most notable achievement in criminology. Secondly, congratulations to the executive committee for choosing Stan Cohen as the first person to whom it should be made. As we all know, Stan has been for decades a towering figure not only in British but also world criminology; and not just criminology but the sociology of crime, deviance, control and, latterly, human rights. No better choice could have been made.
I have known Stan for nearly 50 years, almost as long as I have been ‘doing criminology’. In that entire period, I have never known him write a dull word, or strike a false note. He has incredible quality control. As Martine Navratilova, several times Wimbledon champion – but no criminologist – said: “It is not how you play at your best that matters. It’s how you play at your worst.” It is, though, difficult to find a ‘worst’ in Stan’s work.
However, one thing Stan recoils from is any hint of ‘over the top’ sentiment, so I will stick now to the bare facts of his achievement. First, Folk Devils and Moral Panics in 1972, partly based on his Ph.D at the LSE on vandalism, made such formidable use of those concepts that the term ‘moral panic’ entered the language; has a universal usage far beyond the original instance of the ‘Mods and Rockers’ events, and greatly influenced the politics of naming, social work and the multicultural debate. That was followed by two co-authored works with Laurie Taylor, Psychological Survival (1972, again) and Escape Attempts (1976), the first of which showed how deep were the anxieties of long-term prisoners for the survival of any sense of identity, presaging his later work on human rights.
In 1979 the journal Contemporary Crises published his article “The Punitive City: Notes on the Dispersal of Social Control”. This article became one of a handful that continue to reverberate throughout the field over a generation later. Like Sykes and Matza’s “Techniques of Neutralization” and Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie”, it was a fresh point of departure from earlier classic theories, in this case that of Foucault, to transform the agenda of criminological analysis. Several years later, Visions of Social Control (1985) greatly elaborated and registered those insights anew, most notably the implications of his celebrated fishing metaphor of social and cultural control: net-widening; mesh-thinning; blurring, and penetration. A few years ago, it struck me that he had practically written New Labour’s ‘tough on crime’ programme, but as a warning, not a manifesto. It sometimes seems as if Stan Cohen’s role in criminology is to be its Cassandra, much as one hopes he avoids her fate.
His latest book so far, States of Denial (2002) is his magnum opus or, at least, the latest of them. This book fuses his unique store of knowledge about crime, deviance and control with his concern for human rights. The eloquent sub-title Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering intimates how states and the powerful can utilize ‘techniques of neutralization’ to far more devastating effect than any delinquent. Stan’s criminology has, of course, always been an antidote to conventional criminology. This never meant an abandonment of criminology in its larger, critical and sceptical sense. He was always bemused by those who failed to see the irony in the title of his book of essays, Against Criminology (1988).
What, then, are the qualities that mark his work out as a unique influence in criminology for over four decades? First, his capacity for detachment means he is never captured by any approach or trend, even those he feels most sympathy with – he manages to maintain a disinterested and sceptical approach come what may. Secondly, there is his sheer intellectual honesty – he is not afraid to admit doubt, indecision and anxiety about his own work, let alone that of others. Third, there is his uncanny insight into underlying realities, not least those of self-proclaimed realists of both Left and Right. Fourth, there is his wit, dark humour and great zest for the comic, as in his characteristic line that, in seeking to unravel the meaning of punk culture in Britain in the 1970s, “the whole assembly of cultural artefacts, down to the punks’ last safety pin, have been scrutinised, taken apart, contextualised and re-contextualised…to aid this hunt for the hidden code.” This may be “an imaginative way of reading the style, but how can we be sure it is also not imaginary?”
Fifthly, as several contributors to his festschrift made clear, his work has an intensely practical aspect. In exposing the mechanisms of denial, he has contributed greatly to the preconditions for any possibility of peaceful transition to ending political violence, not only in Israel and South Africa, of which he has direct experience, but also in the many places where such an outcome seems remote. The two fields of criminology and human rights have been seminally integrated in his work.
Finally, when we were compiling the festschrift for Stan Cohen, the editors represented both the criminological and the human rights aspects of his work. We aimed to represent his academic and campaigning work in South Africa and Israel as well as in Britain and the United States. We drew the line at 30 contributions but could easily have doubled that number, and in many ways I wish we had, as the warmth and enthusiasm for Stan and his work, not least from his former students, were quite remarkable. Those responses are embodied in this award, which I am proud to present to him on behalf of the British Society of Criminology.
For older news updates please see our News archive|.
Seminars and Conferences
13 March 2013
6.30pm, LSE, NAB 1.07
Mannheim/BSC Wednesday Seminar
Ros Burnett (University of Oxford) will talk about “False allegations of abuse in positions of trust".
16 May 2012
6.30pm, LSE, NAB LG 09
Joint Seminar Series with the British Society of Criminology
Professor James Sheptycki (York University, Toronto) and Professor Ben Bowling (Kings College, London) discuss their new book 'Global Policing'The seminar will start at 6.30pm, with wine from 6.15pm and we recommend arriving early to be sure of a seat. We hope you will also be able to stay for drinks with the speaker after the talk.
23 May 2012
2.30pm-8pm, LSE, NAB Thai Theatre
'Beyond Pentonville'
It is now nearly a century and a half since the opening of Her Majesty's Prison Pentonville and half a century since the publication of the Morris' seminal sociological study of it. The Mannheim Centre is delighted to be hosting a special seminar in honour of Emeritus Professor Terry Morris , the Centre's first director, to celebrate and reflect on this important study.
Chair: Emeritus Professor David Downes
Speakers: Professor Alison Liebling and Louis Blom Cooper QC
See Events| for all our full listing of events and seminars including time, date and location.
Newsletter
Issue 14 of Mannheim Matters| available now.
Issue 13 ofMannheim Matters|; Issue 12 of Mannheim Matters|; Issue 11 of Mannheim Mattters|; Issue 10 of Mannheim Matters|; Issue 9 of Mannheim Matters| ; Issue 8 of Mannheim Matters| ; Issue 7 of Mannheim Matters| ; Issue 6 of Mannheim Matters| ; Issue 5 of Mannheim Matters|; Issue 4 of Mannheim Matters| ; Issue 3 of Mannheim Matters| ; Issue 2 of Mannheim Matters | ; Issue 1 of Mannheim Matters|
Recent Publications:
Articles:
Acuña-Rivera, Marcela; Uzzell, David; Brown, Jennifer. (2011) Perceptions of disorder, risk and safety: The method and framing effect/Percepción de desorden, riesgo y seguridad: la influencia del método Psyecology: Revista Bilingüe de Psicología Ambiental - Bilingual Journal of Environmental Psychology|, 2, ( 2) , pp. 167-177.
Brown, Jennifer and Woolfenden, Susan. (2011) Implications of the changing gender ratio amongst warranted police officers. Policing, 5, 1-9.
Brown, Jennifer. (2011) We mind and we care but have things changed? Assessment of progress in the reporting, investigating and prosecution of allegations of rape. Journal of Sexual Aggression 17,1-10.
Board, L., and Brown, J. (2011) 'Barriers and enablers to returning to work after long term sickness absence.' American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 54, (4) 307-324.
Newburn, Tim (2011) Criminology and government: some reflections on recent developments in England. In: Bosworth, Mary and Hoyle, Carolyn, (eds.) What is criminology? . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 502-517. ISBN 9780199571826
Phillips, Coretta (2011) Institutional racism and ethnic inequalities: an expanded multilevel framework. Journal of social policy , 40 (01). pp. 173-192.
Ramsey, P.(2011) Substantively Uncivilized ASBOs (2010) Criminal Law Review 10, 761-763
Redmayne, Mike (2011) Recognising propensity. Criminal law review , (3). pp. 177-198. ISSN 0011-135X
Shalev, Sharon 'Solitary Confinement and Supermax Prisons: A Human Rights and Ethical Analysis' |Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 11, Issue 2 & 3, 2011, pp.151-183
Newburn, Tim (2011) Criminology and government: some reflections on recent developments in England. In: Bosworth, Mary and Hoyle, Carolyn, (eds.) What is criminology? . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 502-517. ISBN 9780199571826
Gray, E., Jackson, J. and Farrall, S. (2011). 'Feelings and Functions in the Fear of Crime: Applying a New Approach to Victimisation Insecurity' |, British Journal of Criminology, 51, 1, 75-94.
Bradford, B. and Jackson, J. (2011). Public trust and police legitimacy in Britain: Short-term effects and long-term processes, La vie des idées[published as 'Why Britons Trust their Police' |].
Horvath, M., and Brown, J. M. (2010) Between a rock and a hard place; the vicious cycle when reporting rape. The Psychologist 23, 556-559.
Miller, S., and Brown, J. M.(2010) HMP Dovegate's Therapeutic Community; an analysis of reconviction data. International Journal of Therapeutic Communities 31, 62-75.
Salaam, A., and Brown, J.M. (2010) Patterns of psychoactive substance use among prison inmates in Nigeria prior to and during custody International Journal of Prisoner Health. 6 (3) 107-116.
Books:
The Insecurity State|
Peter Ramsay (OUP 2012)
State Violence, Collusion and the Troubles|
Maurice Punch (Pluto Press 2012)
Handbook on Sexual Violence
|Jennifer Brown; Sandra Walklate (Routledge 2011)
Comparative Criminal Justice and Globalization
|David Nelken (ed.) (Ashgate : 2011)
Understanding Suicide: A Sociological Autopsy|
Ben Fincham, Susanne Langer, Jonathan Scourfield and Michael Shiner (Palgrave Macmillan : 2011)
Policing, Popular Culture and Political Economy : Towards a Social Democratic Criminology|
Robert Reiner
(Ashgate 2011)
The Criminal Process |
Andrew Ashworth and Mike Redmayne (4th ed. OUP : 2010)
Understanding Deviance : A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule-Breaking (Sixth Edition)
|David Downes and Paul Rock (OUP : 2011)
The Eternal Recurrence of Crime and Control: Essays in Honour of Paul Rock
|Edited by David Downes, Dick Hobbs, and Tim Newburn (OUP : 2010)
Comparative Criminal Justice
|by David Nelken (Sage : 2010)
Mental Health and Crime |
by Jill Peay (Routledge : 2010)
The Governance of Policing and Security : Ironies, Myths and Paradoxes
|by Bob Hoogenboom (Macmillan : 2010)
Key Readings in Criminology |
edited by Tim Newburn. (Willan Publishing : 2009)
The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology |
edited by Jennifer M. Brown and Elizabeth A. Campbell (Cambridge University Press: 2010)
Rape : Challenging contemporary thinking |
edited by Miranda Horvath and Jennifer M. Brown (Willan Publishing : 2010)
The Politics of the Police (4th ed.) |
by Robert Reiner (Oxford University Press : 2010)
What if …?
A series of challenging pamphlets
The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Mannheim Centre at the London School of Economics are working in partnership to establish a new pamphlet series that challenges conventional thinking on penal issues. We will work with established and well thought of thinkers, academics and practitioners to develop innovative, and perhaps controversial, ideas that can work as a stimulus to new policy initiatives and ultimately achieve change.
How it works
We are keen to test, challenge and improve the initial ideas to be promulgated in the pamphlet. To achieve this, the author, will subject their ideas to 'peer review' at an invitee seminar, with the ideas initially subject to scrutiny from one or two discussants and then from the invited audience.
Following the seminar the author will be invited to prepare the paper for publication.
The first What if...? Policing
Professor Robert Reiner agreed to be the author of the first pamphlet on the subject of policing. The first seminar was held on Thursday 27 October 2011. The discussants at the seminar were Sir Denis O'Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Baroness Hamwee. Listen to this seminar as an MP3 podcast (108MB)|
The next What if...? Seminar
It will be held on 20th March details to be announced. The topic is:
Why some countries seem to be able to cope with fewer prisoners: what could be done to do the same?
Dr Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, Director, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Finland.
The paper will discuss the following issues in the light of Nordic experiences and cross-comparative evidence from a large sample of European countries.
1. What characterises low imprisonment countries and high imprisonment countries in terms of political cultures, welfare and social policy, public sentiments and trust? How do these basic “drivers of penal policy” interact and relate to each other, how and why are they conductive to different forms of penal practices.
2. Is tough penal policy necessary and/or workable in order to maintain confidence and the credibility of the criminal justice system; does punitivity produce confidence, or does trust enable to conduct less punitive penal/social practices, and if so, why?
3. Which dimensions are essential when discussing “punitivity”? What is the role and relevance of imprisonment compared to other dimensions of systemic punitivity; how systemic and attitudinal punitivity relate and interact; do both dimensions of punitivity originate from the same sources; do high imprisonment countries display also other type of punitive practices?
4. The role of crime: To what extent does crime explain differences in the extent of imprisonment; to what extent do differences in prison policies explain differences in crime?
5. The role of penal reform: How and through which practical means Nordic countries have been able to reduce or moderate the scale imprisonment?
Some issues will be discussed in more detail, some are just posed for discussion.
What if…? Community magistrates delivering community justice
Professor Frances Heidensohn of the Mannheim Centre chaired the second What if ... lecture given by Frances Crook director of the Howard League for Penal Reform. She outlined her proposal to address what she urged was the pressing problems associated with having too many people in prison for too long. She focussed on the magistracy and argued that there was disparity of sentencing, a lack of diversity and a confusion between impartiality and judicial independence. Her proposal was a return to “commoners of the peace” concept of the administration of accessible, local justice making magistrates more accountable to their communities and the sentences they pass. Her idea is to bring justice to the people by having sittings in local community venues such as schools, libraries and even pubs. She would also abolish the District Judges.
John Fassenfelt, chair of the magistrates’ Association in response thought that rather than demographics, magistrates need to be of good character, understanding, able to communicate, be socially aware, have mature and sound judgement and be committed and reliable. Moreover, he thought the cause of the victim should not be overlooked in any reform.
Professor Barry Godfrey from Liverpool University agreed with Frances’ point about the lack of a representative magistracy and thought that there should be an expansion of recruitment including from the unemployed. He thought too there could be further innovation, but that reform had to be supported and properly evaluated. He pointed out the success of job rehabilitation orders. He was not entirely convinced by hearings in pub. The trick he suggested was to retain the majesty of the law and its authority in appropriate community venues.
Professor Julian Roberts from Oxford University felt that some of Frances assertions needed supporting with evidence and that there should be a greater clarity between the identified problems and proposed solution. He argued that actuality localisation of justice brings greater variability rather than consistency of sentencing. He was also sceptical about the idea that being responsible for the sentence was both inappropriate and unrealistic. He too thought if one’s freedom was at stake then there is a requirement to have a certain formality of proceedings.
The presentations can be accessed as a podcast at:http://echo.lse.ac.uk/ess/echo/presentation/341a5bf3-ed31-4c19-bcb9-56679b44a356/media.mp3|
Future What ifs…?
The Howard League and the Mannheim Centre are committed to generating two or three pamphlets each academic year. Although we have many ideas about issues we would like to address, we are keen to hear your ideas about issues that you would like to see on our agenda.
If you have any ideas please email Anita Dockley (anita.dockley@howardleague.org |), Research Director