It is three years and a half since the Conservative Party came into power. During the election campaign of 1979 Mrs. Thatcher asserted that the strongest demand among people was for two things: less tax and more law and order. "Law and order" was raised as an important issue of the general election for the first time after World War II. But Thatcher's election viotory has not resulted in a restoration of law and order. The crime rate has been still increasing after the accession to power of the Conservative Party. There has also been an increasing number of reports of football hooliganism in the last three years. Furthermore it seems that the riots of 1981 in about thirty English cities have decisively exploded the assertions of the law and order campaign. But the institutional foundations of Thatcher's policy remain intact and unaltered. Since 1979 the Conservative Party has taken the major initiative especially in two fields of penal policy: capital punishment and juvenile justice. The main reasons for the re-introduction of bapital punishment are that the death penalty would be a deterrent to certain types of murderers and that it would help the police in carrying out their duties. The House of Commons, however, voted against restoring hanging, twice by a majority which was far higher than some people expected. The Conservative Government also published a white paper "Young Offenders" in October 1980. The white paper's main proposals are that detention centre orders should be shorter, and that youth custody should replace sentences of borstal training and imprisonment. But critics says that these changes might result in a considerable increase in the number of young offenders committed to custodial establishments. It should be noted that in response to Tory initiatives the right-wing criminology has become influential. The right-wing criminologists clim that the loss of established, dominant morality is the cause of social disorder in Britain and that the orderliness in socid life on a basis of morality and discipline must be reconstructed. It is interesting to know how new criminologists respond to such a situation. At the earher stage new criminologists did not seem to have an effective response to actual penal practice, because there were diversity of opinion as to the master theoretical foundation and internal contradictions. But it is recently stated that the new criminology has become more homogeneous. The current tendencies in the new criminology are as follows: First, the theoretical foundation in the new criminology is moving fiom labeling theory to Marxism. Second, the new criminology is exercising more effect upon sociology than upon criminology. Third, the new criminologist's interest in practical problems of criminal justice is growing. The new crimiriology's practical implications are, however, still unclear even now. That is to say, new criminologists have not yet proposed an established alternative plan to Thatcher's penal policy. Therefore it could be said that the new criminology has been put on to the defensive. Recently I. Taylor, co-author of "the New Criminology", mentioned that repetition of earlier idealistic versions of radical criminology is an inadequate and irresponsible response to the popular anxieties that exist on street crime and on contemporary behaviour of youth. According to his view, any new socialist criminology must be formed in a practical context: for example, the prison movement, the police, law enforcement and the women's movement. It is difficult to tell whether or not his proposals will have much influence on formulation of pend policy. But these proposals will create much discussion. It will also be interesting to see how the rightwing criminology and the remaining group in the new criminology will respond to Taylor's view.
抄録全体を表示