Crime control and devolution: policy-making and expert knowledge in a multi-tiered democracy

这四个研讨会汇集了来自若干相关领域(包括犯罪学、政治学和法学)的学者、政策制定者、从业人员和感兴趣的其他人(例如记者)，讨论自权力下放以来联合王国不同地区的犯罪政策的制定。英国不再是一个单一的国家，如果它曾经是的话。整个英国都有犯罪学和法律研究的悠久传统；这些传统讲述了不同的历史和环境。然而，对犯罪这一公共问题和犯罪政策形成的研究尚未充分处理生活在多层民主中的现实。推而广之，他们也没有探索发现和创新的潜力，这可能是系统的比较工作所预示的。近年来，苏格兰、威尔士、英格兰和北爱尔兰的政策发展与相关地区截然不同的权力和政治轨迹有何不同？考虑到苏格兰或北爱尔兰的监狱和缓刑服务机构已经与英格兰和威尔士的系统完全分开，就像其他各种机构一样，这些差异是否将它们的特征归因于预先存在的权力下放的因素？另一方面，我们是否可以看到新的法律体系、新的做法或政策显然是从移交的安排中产生的？考虑到威尔士和苏格兰机构的权力截然不同，经过十多年的权力下放，这两个国家的权力演变有何不同？北爱尔兰的刑事司法关键领域最近才被移交，从这些报告中可以学到什么？从其他有利的角度来看，我们可以从新的角度了解英格兰--英格兰是占主导地位的国家，但在一些突出的方面还没有得到研究。在建立一个论坛方面，所有有关各方都有很大的相互学习的余地，有各种见解和责任的人可以在这个论坛上以协调一致的方式讨论这些问题。在英国国内，对政策效果和有效性进行比较研究的潜力也很大。然而，目前还很少有系统比较的例子。通过这种方式，我们可以学到很多关于政策制定的知识。在爱丁堡、卡迪夫、贝尔法斯特和伦敦，或在其他地方，政策是在哪些不同的网络和社交环境中制定的？政治诉求对各地政策的产生、制定或执行有何影响？需要什么专业知识资源？哪些人参与协商进程，这些进程的包容性或有效性如何？研究是如何组织、资助和使用的？在每一种情况下，循证决策原则都有哪些机会或障碍？最后，在权力下放的英国新政策领域，研究人员和政策制定者可以从其他欧洲国家的联邦或地区治理经验中学到什么？例如，在德国或西班牙，谁制定政策，谁提供和谁使用什么样的知识？在欧洲机构本身的自由、正义和安全领域承担更大的权力，对每一个人都有什么影响？我们将在爱丁堡、贝尔法斯特、卡迪夫和牛津举办四个为期一天的研讨会。它们将涵盖：i)权力下放前后刑事司法方面的历史、政治和文化；ii)关于犯罪和司法的知识和政策问题；iii)相互学习和比较研究：罪犯管理和治安；iv)欧洲视角下的英国的犯罪和司法：比较案例研究和欧洲机构。我们的目标是至少出版一本编辑过的书和一些文章，可能包括一本期刊的特刊。我们将在每次研讨会后提供可访问和广泛分发的简报会，并将通过一系列现有的和新的媒体与政策团体和更广泛的公众分享研讨会的见解。

These four seminars bring together academics from a number of relevant fields (including criminology, politics and law), policy-makers, practitioners, and interested others (journalists, for example) to discuss the making of crime policy in the various parts of the United Kingdom since devolution. The UK is no longer, if it ever was, a unitary state. There are extended traditions of criminology and legal studies across the UK; and these speak to distinct histories and circumstances. Yet studies of crime as a public issue and of crime policy formation have not yet fully addressed the realities of living in a multi-tiered democracy. Neither, by extension, have they explored the potential for discovery and innovation that this may herald by sytematic comparative work. How differently has policy developed in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland in recent years in light of the very distinct powers and political trajectories of the places concerned? Do any such differences owe their character to factors that pre-exist devolution given that, for example, the Scottish or Northern Irish prison and probation services were already quite separate from the English and Welsh system, as were various other agencies? On the other hand can we see new bodies of law, new practices or policies that clearly flow from the devolved arrangements? How differently have these evolved in Wales and Scotland, after more than a decade of devolution, given the quite different powers of the institutions there? What can be learned from these for Northern Ireland, where key areas of criminal justice have only recently been devolved, from these accounts? What can we learn anew about England - the dominant yet in some salient respects unexamined case - by viewing it from other vantage points? There is great scope for mutual learning for all concerned in creating a forum in which people with a range of insights and responsibilities can discuss these matters in a concerted way. There is also great potential for comparative studies of the effects and effectiveness of policy within the UK. Yet few examples of systematic comparison yet exist. We can learn a lot about policy-making in this way. In what different networks and social settings is policy developed in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London, or in other locations? How do political demands bear upon the generation, formulation or implementation of policies in each place? What resources of expertise are called upon? Who takes part in consultative processes and how inclusive or how effective are these? How is research organized, funded and used? What opportunities or obstacles attend the principle of evidence-informed policy-making in each case? Finally, what can research and policy-makers in the new policy spaces of the devolved UK learn from those in other European countries with their distinct experiences of federal or regional governance. Who makes policy, and who provides and who uses what kinds of knowledge, in Germany or in Spain, for example? What is the bearing on each of the assumption of greater competences for the 'area of freedom, justice and security' of European institutions themselves? We will hold four one-day seminars in Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff and Oxford. They will cover: i) History, politics and culture in criminal justice before and since devolution; ii) Questions of knowledge and policy - doing and using research on crime and justice; iii) Mutual learning and comparative studies: offender management and policing; iv) Crime and justice in the UK in European perspective: comparative case studies and European institutions. We aim to produce at least one edited book and a number of articles, possibly including a special issue of a journal. We will provide accessible and widely circulated briefings following each seminar and will share insights from the seminars with policy communities and wider publics through a range of established and 'new' media