The Experts below are selected from a list of 318 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Georg Wenzelburger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Partisan Politics of Law and Order - A Theoretical Framework of the Partisan Politics of Law and Order
    The Partisan Politics of Law and Order, 2020
    Co-Authors: Georg Wenzelburger
    Abstract:

    Chapter 2 develops a theoretical framework for the analysis of Law and Order policies from a partisan politics perspective. It argues that understanding Law and Order policy making involves two main steps that can be conceptually distinguished: agenda-setting and decision-making. For the agenda-setting phase, the chapter builds on the assumption that issues related to Law and Order are valence-loaden and generate issue competition between political parties. Therefore, issue owners are particularly likely to get tough on Law and Order. For decision-making, the theoretical argument relates to theories of comparative public policy analysis, according to which the preferences do translate into public policies, but only if the institutional context allows. Finally, this theoretical chapter discusses how Law and Order turns may shape the future policy path through positive policy feedback. All expectations are summarized in seven hypotheses to guide the empirical analysis.

  • The Partisan Politics of Law and Order - The Partisan Politics of Law and Order: Past, Present and Future
    The Partisan Politics of Law and Order, 2020
    Co-Authors: Georg Wenzelburger
    Abstract:

    Chapter 7 summarizes the main findings of the book and links them to the existing literature. It emphasizes the importance of putting political parties center stage when analyzing Law and Order policies. The chapter concludes by discussing three scenarios on how Law and Order policies may develop given the recent changes in political systems in Western democracies.

  • The Partisan Politics of Law and Order
    2020
    Co-Authors: Georg Wenzelburger
    Abstract:

    The comparative study of Law and Order policies has mostly overlooked partisan politics as a possible explanation of differences between Western nations. Filling this gap in the literature, this book argues theoretically and substantiates empirically that Law and Order policies are heavily affected by partisan politics. By means of a large-N analysis of spending data and a new dataset on Law and Order legislation as well as four in-depth case studies, the empirical evidence shows that party competition and the party ideology of governments do affect policies—depending on the institutional context of a political system. Moreover, path dependencies tend to freeze these effects over a certain period of time creating positive feedback dynamics.

  • The Partisan Politics of Law and Order - Patterns of Law and Order Policies in 20 Western Industrialized Countries: A Quantitative Analysis
    The Partisan Politics of Law and Order, 2020
    Co-Authors: Georg Wenzelburger
    Abstract:

    Chapter 3 provides a quantitative analysis of the politics of Law and Order. It is presented in three steps. First, it is tested whether party competition affects how much parties emphasize Law and Order issues in their programs and whether this is different for issue owners. The study reveals that high public salience of security-related issues pushes all parties to emphasize Law and Order more strongly and that issue owners react strongly to the pressure of right-wing populist parties by emphasizing Law and Order in their manifestos. Second, the quantitative analysis tests whether these different programmatic stances translate into more spending on Law and Order. This is indeed the case, but only if constitutional courts are weak. Third, the analysis takes a closer look at legislation in France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and finds the main results of the analysis on public spending corroborated.

  • The Partisan Politics of Law and Order - Law and Order Policies and Conservative Parties
    The Partisan Politics of Law and Order, 2020
    Co-Authors: Georg Wenzelburger
    Abstract:

    Chapter 5 presents evidence on how two conservative governments, the Bildt government in Sweden in the early 1990s and the French UMP governments at the beginning of the 2000s, embarked on rather different policy paths although both governments had pledged to implement harsher Law and Order policies. The difference between the two countries is explained by the fact that the Swedish political system constrains radical policy shifts by a legislative process that is lengthy and aimed at consensus. Therefore, the government simply did not have enough time to implement what might have been a major policy change. Second, the importance of Law and Order policies was greatly reduced in Sweden due to a major financial and economic crisis that hit the country only months after the government took office—hence, crime and security were not a priority. In France, in contrast, institutional constraints were weak, which explains the shift toward a harsher stance.

Russell Hogg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Populism, Law and Order and the Crimes of the 1%
    International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy, 2013
    Co-Authors: Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    The article examines the evidence of endemic financial crime in the global financial crisis (GFC), the legal impunity surrounding these crimes and the popular revolt against these abuses in the financial, political and legal systems. This is set against a consideration of the development since the 1970s of a conservative politics championing de-regulation, unfettered markets, welfare cuts and harsh Law and Order policies. On the one hand, this led to massively increased inequality and concentrations of wealth and political power in the hands of the super-rich, effectively placing them above the Law, as the GFC revealed. On the other, a greatly enlarged, more punitive criminal justice system was directed at poor and minority communities. Explanations in terms of the rise of penal populism are helpful in explaining these developments, but it is argued they adopt a limited and reductionist view of populism, failing to see the prospects for a progressive populist politics to re-direct political attention to issues of inequality and corporate and white collar criminality.

  • Law and Order in Australia - Rhetoric and Reality [Book Review]
    2005
    Co-Authors: Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    Publishers' details for: Law and Order in Australia--Rhetoric and Reality, Don Weatherburn, Federation Press 2004, ISBN 1 86287 562 4.

  • Shadow Boxing with an Imaginary Enemy - a Response to 'Law and Order Blues'
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2002
    Co-Authors: David Indermaur, David Brown, Sandra Egger, Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    In our rejoinder to Don Weatherburn's paper, “Law and Order Blues”, we do not take issue with his advocacy of the need to take crime seriously and to foster a more rational approach to the problems it poses. Where differences do emerge is (1) with his claim that he is willing to do so whilst we (in our different ways) are not; and (2) on the question of what this involves. Of particular concern is the way in which his argument proceeds by a combination of simple misrepresentation of the positions it seeks to disparage, and silence concerning issues of real substance where intellectual debate and exchange would be welcome and useful. Our paper challenges, in turn, the misrepresentation of Indermaur's analysis of trends in violent crime, the misrepresentation of Hogg and Brown's Rethinking Law and Order, the misrepresentation of the findings of some of the research into the effectiveness of punitive policies and the silence on sexual assault in “Law and Order Blues”. We suggest that his silence on sexual assault reflects a more widespread unwillingness to acknowledge the methodological problems that arise in the measurement of crime because such problems severely limit the extent to which confident assertions can be made about prevalence and trends.

  • Shadow Boxing with an Imaginary Enemy — A Response to "Law and Order Blues"
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2002
    Co-Authors: David Indermaur, David Brown, Sandra Egger, Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    In our rejoinder to Don Weatherburn's paper,"Law and Order Blues", we do not take issue with his advocacy of the need to take crime seriously and to foster a more rational approach to the problems it poses. Where differences do emerge is (1) with his claim that he is willing to do so whilst we (in our different ways) are not; and (2) on the question of what this involves. Of particular concern is the way in which his argument proceeds by a combination of simple misrepresentation of the positions it seeks to disparage, and silence concerning issues of real substance where intellectual debate and exchange would be welcome and useful. Our paper challenges, in turn, the misrepresentation of Indermaur's analysis of trends in violent crime, the misrepresentation of Hogg and Brown's Rethinking Law and Order, the misrepresentation of the findings of some of the research into the effectiveness of punitive policies and the silence on sexual assault in "Law and Order Blues". We suggest that his silence on sexual assault reflects a more widespread unwillingness to acknowledge the methodological problems that arise in the measurement of crime because such problems severely limit the extent to which confident assertions can be made about prevalence and trends

  • Mandatory Sentencing Legislation and the Symbolic Politics of Law and Order
    University of New South Wales law journal, 1999
    Co-Authors: Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    A 'mandatory' sentence describes the situation where the sentencing court has only one possible option. Its supporters generally depict emerging political interest in mandatory sentencing in Australia and the introduction of such Laws in Western Australia and the Northern Territory as a necessary response to a crisis of Law and Order characterised by runaway crime rates and undue leniency towards convicted offenders.

Melissa Crouch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Toni Makkai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

David Indermaur - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Shadow Boxing with an Imaginary Enemy - a Response to 'Law and Order Blues'
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2002
    Co-Authors: David Indermaur, David Brown, Sandra Egger, Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    In our rejoinder to Don Weatherburn's paper, “Law and Order Blues”, we do not take issue with his advocacy of the need to take crime seriously and to foster a more rational approach to the problems it poses. Where differences do emerge is (1) with his claim that he is willing to do so whilst we (in our different ways) are not; and (2) on the question of what this involves. Of particular concern is the way in which his argument proceeds by a combination of simple misrepresentation of the positions it seeks to disparage, and silence concerning issues of real substance where intellectual debate and exchange would be welcome and useful. Our paper challenges, in turn, the misrepresentation of Indermaur's analysis of trends in violent crime, the misrepresentation of Hogg and Brown's Rethinking Law and Order, the misrepresentation of the findings of some of the research into the effectiveness of punitive policies and the silence on sexual assault in “Law and Order Blues”. We suggest that his silence on sexual assault reflects a more widespread unwillingness to acknowledge the methodological problems that arise in the measurement of crime because such problems severely limit the extent to which confident assertions can be made about prevalence and trends.

  • Shadow Boxing with an Imaginary Enemy — A Response to "Law and Order Blues"
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2002
    Co-Authors: David Indermaur, David Brown, Sandra Egger, Russell Hogg
    Abstract:

    In our rejoinder to Don Weatherburn's paper,"Law and Order Blues", we do not take issue with his advocacy of the need to take crime seriously and to foster a more rational approach to the problems it poses. Where differences do emerge is (1) with his claim that he is willing to do so whilst we (in our different ways) are not; and (2) on the question of what this involves. Of particular concern is the way in which his argument proceeds by a combination of simple misrepresentation of the positions it seeks to disparage, and silence concerning issues of real substance where intellectual debate and exchange would be welcome and useful. Our paper challenges, in turn, the misrepresentation of Indermaur's analysis of trends in violent crime, the misrepresentation of Hogg and Brown's Rethinking Law and Order, the misrepresentation of the findings of some of the research into the effectiveness of punitive policies and the silence on sexual assault in "Law and Order Blues". We suggest that his silence on sexual assault reflects a more widespread unwillingness to acknowledge the methodological problems that arise in the measurement of crime because such problems severely limit the extent to which confident assertions can be made about prevalence and trends