WELFARE, PENAL POLICY AND PUNISHMENT Chair: Hilde Tubex Chair: Hilde Tubex

0159 - RE-INVENTING PENAL WELFARISM? FINDINGS FROM AN ANALYSIS OF GERMAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FROM 1970 TO 2012

Bernd Dollinger (Germany)¹; Dirk Lampe (Germany)² 1 - University of Siegen; 2 - University of Bremen

International analyses of penal transformations purport ‘reinventions of the social’. After decades of mainly retributive, risk-oriented and populist penal policies, political interest in welfarist policies seems to be revitalised. In a very specific shape, they seem to thrive or, at

131 These analyses should be subjected to close scrutiny. Time and again, researchers are inclined to overrate and wrongly generalise partial trends. In addition, the bulk of international analyses of criminal policy is focused solely on Anglophone countries, making it difficult to weigh their relevance for other countries.

Against this background, we present findings from an analysis of German penal policy from 1970 to 2012. The empirical basis of our explanation is an assessment of all parliamentary debates concerning youth crime in six German parliaments (2 federal and 4 state parliaments).

In addition, we analysed outstanding political campaigns, respective media reports and partisan publications. We used a qualitative discourse analysis to determine the content and transformation of political stances on youth delinquency in general, on specific offenses and offender types, as well as on measures that were demanded to tackle juvenile delinquency.

This reconstruction also allows for an assessment of possible punitive and populist trends.

The results yield a multi-faceted picture of the political debates. An important turning point appeared in the mid-1990s when welfarist positions were increasingly questioned. Welfare oriented policies were gradually denied the capability to deal with persistent violent offenders and right wing extremists. Irrespective of party affiliation, calls for prevention, cooperation, and swiftly administered interventions occurred as a common political denominator. Yet the policy change did not entail a sameness of all political stakeholders. To date, distinct differences between federal and state parliaments as well as of respective parties have to be taken into account, and they contribute to a continuously contested field of policy. In general, findings from international studies on penal transformations are not fully suitable to fathom and to give adequate consideration to German penal policy.

0160 - POLITICAL ECONOMY AND PUNISHMENT IN AUSTRALIA Hilde Tubex (Australia)¹

1 - University of Western Australia

In this paper, we start from recent writings that analyse changes of penality through the lens of political economy, to interpret trends in the size and composition of prison populations in Australian states and territories.

Australia shares many of the characteristics of other Anglo-Saxon countries which are associated with increased punitiveness, as measured by the imprisonment rate. It is a neo-liberal political economy, with corresponding exclusionary features, as described by Cavadino and Dignan (2006), or, in the words of Lacey (2008), a liberal market economy, with a majoritarian democratic model and a common law adversarial judicial system.

Moreover, although Australia's social democratic traditions have moderated the raw neo-liberalism Wacquant (2009) has described in the USA, leaving some of its welfare policies intact, penal policies have espoused the “law and order” approach, resulting in rising

imprisonment rates, most significantly reflected in the increasingly disproportionate representation of Indigenous people in the prison.

On closer examination, however, significant differences between the imprisonment rates of the eight jurisdictions within the Australian borders are revealed. All jurisdictions are subject to the overarching, global narratives mentioned above. However, how these master narratives are translated at a state level, and the trajectories they follow, are different, subject to judicial cultures and social values, and have resulted in the emergence of distinct punishment practices and local penal cultures.

In this paper, we discuss how the above mentioned lines of literature are useful in understanding what shapes the penal landscape in four Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia), representative of the country's penal diversity. We suggest that a single model of political economy is insufficient to explain the complexity of penal variances within Australia, the time lapses in the developments, and differences in the size and composition of prison populations. In particular, the differences in the ‘level’ of the imprisonment rates require additional explanatory models, such as culture (Garland 2001); particularly processes of cultural embeddedness (Melossi, 2011), and analysis of the historical development of the settlement of each state.

0161 - NORWEGIAN EXCEPTIONALISM – NOT SO EXCEPTIONAL?

Dag Leonardsen (Norway)¹

1 - Lillehammer University College

For several years, the UN has ranked Norway as having the highest standard of living in the world. Also, the Nordic welfare-state model has in many regards been declared a success, and criminologists have talked about ‘Scandinavian exceptionalism’. Economic equality, a generous, universal social-security system, and high expenditures spent on preventive politics are important characteristics of this model. However, when it comes to tackling social problems (not only crime, but also social/mental problems more generally), even Norway is struggling. This article gives a brief overview of the “social-problem history” of Norway 1945-2015 as responsible politicians themselves have described it, and discusses why, in spite of the best presuppositions, so many people struggle with mastering life. The author discloses the powerlessness experienced by politicians and professionals in attaining preventive measures.

As long as a free trade economy and ever-increasing demands for competitiveness is the taken-for-granted premise, the exclusive society is the likely result. Norwegian politicians are not only strong protagonists for liberalist values in the economy; this set of values has gradually invaded even the socio-cultural system: our kindergartens, schools and the broader society. The author challenges these priorities, and argues that modern social problems (crime is but one) only to a limited extent can be solved through competent, professional, and

133 2.19 PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY

Chair: Mahesh Nalla

0162 - THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY IN BELGIUM (1907-1934): CRIMINOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORICAL SHIFTS IN THE PROVISION OF SECURITY

Pieter Leloup (Belgium)¹ 1 - Vrije Universiteit Brussel

The focus of this research lies on the historical development and criminological significance of the private security industry in Belgium in the first third of the twentieth century. To that end, the aim of this paper is threefold. First, to understand the underlying historical mechanisms that shaped the development of an early twentieth century Belgian security market. The second aim is to analyse and explain the nature and role of the discussed non-state security providers alongside and in relation to their public counterparts. Third and finally, to challenge the alleged historical discontinuity in private initiatives in surveillance and protection and by doing so, reveal the explanatory value of the historical perspective for current trends in the area of policing. For this study, empirical data was collected through archival research in organisations directly and indirectly involved in (private) policing and security – e.g. private security companies, local and judicial authorities, the Chamber of Commerce, maritime, business and industrial interest parties, etc.

Following a thorough analysis of the collected data, we argue that a specific but complex set of societal conditions and transformations, which are discussed in the paper, accelerated the establishment of a rapidly expanding private security industry. Already at the beginning of the previous century, this industry functioned as a specialist provider of a wide and fast-growing range of manned guarding and security services in maritime, industrial, commercial and urban residential areas in Belgium. Consequently, the public authorities witnessed the emergence of a private sector operating at the core of (preventive) policing, calling into question the assumed state monopoly over crime control. In this process, however, the state tried to reconfirm its exclusive right to determine who may guarantee security and to what end. By putting our results in perspective with the present-day governance of policing, we believe that the historical roots of Belgium’s late modern private security industry are to be found in the establishment of a number of private policing companies at the beginning of the twentieth century. They marked, especially in terms of their activities, professional and commercial characteristics and modus operandi, a symbolic shift in the (private) provision of security, furthermore demonstrating that by this time policing was already undertaken by multiple public and private agencies, both in complementary and competitive configurations.

0163 - PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY IN RUSSIA IN THE XXI CENTURY: LEGAL FRAMEWORK, CHALLENGES, AND PERSPECTIVES

Anna Gurinskaya (Russian Federation)¹; Mahesh Nalla (United States of America)²; Aryna Dzmitryieva (Russian Federation)³

1 - St.Petersburg State University; 2 - Michigan State University; 3 - European University at St.Petersburg

The emergence and the development of private security industry in Russia was inevitable given the transition to market economy and democratic governance resulting in shifts of social regulatory mechanisms from the public to private sectors. The roots of the demand for private protection in the Soviet Union can be traced back as late as the post II World War years.

However, only with the radical transformation of the Soviet society the real supply of and demand for private security was created. Several works deal with the issue of the emergence of the industry and its rapid growth in the 1990s that was caused by the growing street crime rates and, especially, the blossoming of the organized crime activity. In the last decade the development of this industry was caused by other factors, namely the emergence of the mass private spaces (shopping malls, entertainment parks and centers, gated communities, etc.), increased terrorist threat, and the declining trust in the police guardianship.

The aim of this paper is to examine the evolution of the state of the private security industry in Russia for the last 15 years, focusing mostly on the private security guards. More specifically, we will assess the trends and changes in legislation that occurred since 2002 pertaining to the recruitment and training of the security guards as well as their rights, duties, obligations, and state oversight mechanisms. We will address further why and how the government has increased control over the industry, and broadened simultaneously the scope of the services that private security companies are allowed to provide. We shall also specifically focus on the place of the private security companies on the market of agencies providing security services (governmental and non-governmental). Drawing from literature from Europe, we will assess the extent to which these new legislative efforts compare with existing trends in statutes in Europe.

0164 - NORMATIVITY AND PRAGMATISM: BEYOND THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE DICHOTOMY IN PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS AND PRIVATE JUSTICE WITHIN BUSINESSES

Clarissa Meerts (Netherlands)¹ 1 - Erasmus University Rotterdam

At the core of this presentation are the private methods of investigation as used by corporate security providers in the Netherlands, and the (private) settlement options which follow those

135 The presentation takes a novel approach to the (generally assumed) dichotomy between public and private interests in reactions to crime within businesses and other organisations. It is argued that it is not only public and private interests that form a driving force behind decisions (e.g. whether or not to report an incident to the authorities) but that concepts such as normativity and pragmatism also have an important role to play. Fieldwork suggests that private interests of a client are indeed leading for corporate security and its clients but that these are not necessarily put above all else. It is more often than not against the private interest of an organisation to report a crime to the authorities (as this could cause reputational and thus financial damage) and many studies have found that reporting incidents to authorities is not very common amongst organisations. However, reports are still made to the public authorities, even in cases when such reporting brings no private benefit. Organisations and investigators seem to use a report to the police sometimes strategically (and pragmatically), for example a criminal case may be used to strengthen a civil case. At other times, however, a report is made as an expression of moral indignation (normatively), for example because the decision makers feel cheated. They might not expect any positive effect to their private interest but still feel the need to report the incident as it is ‘the right thing to do’. Conversely, pragmatic considerations may induce a company to handle an incident privately, for example for the sake of a speedy resolution, in cases when the public authorities might not prioritise the case (but public interests may be involved).

The presentation explores the above matters by using data from 48 semi-structured interviews with private investigators, law enforcement and clients (ongoing); 21 case studies of private investigations; and two six week observations (one with a corporate security firm and one with a security department of a large company). All data were gathered in the Netherlands from October 2012 till the present (ongoing).

0165 - SURVEILLANCE BEYOND THE POLICE. NEW TECHNOLOGY AND NEW PLAYERS Janne Flyghed (Sweden)¹

1 - Department of Criminology, Stockholm University

The private security sectors involvement in policing has significantly changed since the early 1990´s. Nowadays it´s no longer just a matter of traditional proactive and reactive police-work.

There has emerged a new kind of expertise concerning sophisticated investigations and advanced forensic work. This has emerged in connection with the supply of consultancy services within security companies and auditing firms. How come that major companies and large organisations turn to private firms and not to the police when they are confronted with suspected illegal actions, either from within or from the outside? I will argue that one main reason for this, is a strive for control. By hiring a private actor they own the conflict, that is, it´s up to them to decide if they will bring it out in the public, or keep the investigation as an internal matter. If they decide that public attention might harm their goodwill, and maybe even cause badwill, they will keep the conflict within the company.

There has also been an extremely rapid development when it comes to new surveillance technology. There are now technical devices for all kinds of activities. The question today is not how far it´s technically possible to go when it comes to surveillance; instead the question is how far it´s acceptable to go, and at the same time respect traditional civil rights standards.

Are we in the name of combating crime sacrificing privacy and other basic civil rights? And are we really getting more security? And furthermore, does this development constitute a threat to the state’s control of illegal activities; that is, have the importance of the traditional police in some way diminished? Are we dealing with a situation where security and crime control are increasingly becoming a good for those citizens who can afford it?

My main interest is in relation to what happens when private actors (security companies and auditing firms) are using these new technical devices. To what extent are these activities controllable? If it´s sometimes a lack of transparency when it comes to the traditional police, what about these private firms in relation to democratic scrutiny and legal accountability?

2.20 POLICE, INTELLIGENCE AND TECHNOLOGY