Against the Odds? Unraveling the Paradoxes of Risk Prevention in Counter-Radicalization Strategy

  • Gabe MythenEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)


This chapter probes some of the ambiguities and contradictions that emerge in the application of pre-emptive, risk-based techniques of crime regulation. Utilizing the example of measures designed to counter radicalization, the deployment of risk discourses and techniques is subjected to scrutiny. Focusing on the impacts of Prevent, a nationwide strategy introduced in the UK to combat terrorism, both the rationale for and the application of risk-based logics in security management are interrogated. It is demonstrated that reactive and hastily implemented security measures may produce iatrogenic effects on specific minority groups that constitute targeted populations. Further, the broader consequences of the use of risk-based modes of intervention on human rights and civil liberties are documented.


Counter-radicalization strategy Pre-emptive intervention Prevent Violent extremism Terrorism 


  1. 9/11 Commission Report (2004) Washington: United States Government.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, W. (2017) ‘Prevent Referrals: The Story Behind the Headlines’, Huffington Post. Available at, accessed March 11 2019.
  3. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, J. (2007) Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Burnett, J. and Whyte, D. (2005) ‘Embedded Expertise and the New Terrorism’, Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1(4): 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. CAGE (2016) The Science of Pre-crime: The Secret Radicalisation Study Underpinning Prevent. London: CAGE.Google Scholar
  8. CAGE (2017) The Prevent Strategy: A Cradle to Grave Police State. London: CAGE.Google Scholar
  9. Choudhury, T. and Fenwick, H. (2011) The Impact of Counter-terrorism Measures on Muslim Communities. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  10. Dalgaard-Nielsen A (2010) ‘Violent Radicalization in Europe: What We Know and What We Do Not Know’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 33(9): 797–814.Google Scholar
  11. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Preventing Violent Extremism: Winning Hearts and Minds. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  12. Dodd, V. (2009) ‘Government anti-terrorism strategy spies on innocent’, The Guardian, October 16.Google Scholar
  13. Dudenhoefer, A. (2018) ‘Resisting Radicalization: A Critical Analysis of the UK Prevent Duty’, Journal for Deradicalization, 14(1): 143–191.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, P. (2014) ‘How (Not) to Create Ex-Terrorists: Prevent as Ideological Warfare’, in C. Baker-Beall, C. Heath-Kelly and L. Jarvis (eds.) Counter-Radicalization: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Elshimi, M. (2015) ‘De-Radicalization Interventions as Technologies of the Self: A Foucauldian Analysis’, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8:1: 110–129.Google Scholar
  16. Ericson, R. and Haggerty, K. (1997) Policing the Risk Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  17. Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) ‘The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications’, Criminology, 30(4): 449–474.Google Scholar
  18. Francis, M. (2015) ‘If you really could brainwash Muslims, ISIS would have a lot more British recruits’, The Conversation. July 7.Google Scholar
  19. Garland, D. (1990) Punishment in Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Global Terrorism Database (2017) Global Terrorism in 2017: Background Report. Maryland: START.Google Scholar
  21. Halliday, J. (2016) ‘Almost 4,000 people referred to UK deradicalization scheme last year’, The Guardian, March 20.Google Scholar
  22. Heath-Kelly, C. (2013) ‘Counter-terrorism and the counterfactual: Producing the ‘radicalization’ discourse and the UK PREVENT Strategy’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 15(3): 394–415.Google Scholar
  23. Heath-Kelly, C., Baker-Beall, C and Jarvis, L. eds. (2014) Counter-Radicalization: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. HM Prison and Probation Service (2017) A Process Evaluation of the Structured Risk Guidance for Extremist Offenders. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  25. Home Office (2006) Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy. Available at, accessed 2 April 2018.
  26. Home Office (2011) Prevent Strategy. Available at, accessed 2 April 2018.
  27. Home Office (2015) Channel Duty Guidance. Available at, accessed 17 June 2018.
  28. Home Office (2018a) Individuals Referred to and Supported through the Prevent Programme Statistics, April 2016 to March 2017. Available at, accessed 17 June 2018.
  29. Home Office (2018b) New figures show improved referrals to Prevent and a rise in far-right concerns. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
  30. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (2017) Radicalization: the counter-narrative and identifying the tipping point. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
  31. James, A. (2018) ‘I’m a doctor, not a counter-terrorism operative: let me do my job’, The Guardian, March 21.Google Scholar
  32. Kai, M. (2017) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association on his follow-up mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Geneva: Human Rights Council.Google Scholar
  33. Kemshall, H. (2003) Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice. Buckingham: OUP.Google Scholar
  34. Khaleeli, H. (2015) ‘You worry they could take your kids: Is the Prevent strategy demonising Muslim schoolchildren?’ The Guardian, September 23.Google Scholar
  35. Kundnani, A. (2012) ‘Radicalization: The Journey of a Concept’, Race and Class, 54, 2: 3–25.Google Scholar
  36. Kundnani, A. (2015) A Decade Lost: Rethinking Radicalization and Extremism. London: Claystone.Google Scholar
  37. Laughland, O. and Dodd, V. (2018) ‘British Isis fighters known as ‘the Beatles’ captured in Syria’, The Guardian. February 8. Accessible at, accessible April 4 2019.
  38. Lewis, J. (2018) ‘Prevent as an Intractable Policy Controversy: Implications and Solutions’, Journal for Deradicalization, 15.Google Scholar
  39. Lloyd, M. and Dean, C. (2015) ‘The Development of Structured Guidelines for Assessing Risk in Extremist Offenders’, Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 2(1): 40–52.Google Scholar
  40. McCulloch, J. and Wilson, D. (2016) Pre-emption, precaution and the future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. McElroy, J. (2018) ‘In Defence of the Prevent Programme’, Times Educational Supplement. Available at, accessed June 17 2018.
  42. McGhee, D. (2011) ‘New Prevent: Different is not better’, Muslim Council of Britain. Available at:, accessed March 11 2018.
  43. Mythen, G. (2014) Understanding the Risk Society: Crime, Security and Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2006) ‘Criminology and Terrorism: Which Thesis? Risk Society or Governmentality?’ The British Journal of Criminology, 46(3): 379–398.Google Scholar
  45. Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2010) ‘Pre-crime, Regulation, and Counter-terrorism: Interrogating Anticipatory Risk’, Criminal Justice Matters, 81(1): 34–36.Google Scholar
  46. Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2016) ‘Not Knowing, Emancipatory Catastrophism and Metamorphosis: Embracing the Spirit of Ulrich Beck’, Security Dialogue, 47(5): 403–419.Google Scholar
  47. Mythen, G., Walklate, S. and Peatfield, E. (2017) ‘Assembling and Deconstructing Radicalization: A Critique of the Logic of Drivers’, Critical Social Policy, 37(2): 180–201.Google Scholar
  48. O’Malley, P. (1992) ‘Risk, power and crime prevention’, Economy and Society, 21(3): 252–275.Google Scholar
  49. O’Malley, P. (2009) Crime and Risk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. O’Toole, T. (2015) ‘Prevent: from hearts and minds to muscular liberalism’, Public Spirit. Available at to-muscular-liberalism, accessed March 11 2019.
  51. Pankhurst, R. (2013) ‘Woolwich, Islamism and the Conveyor Belt to Terrorism Theory’. Available at:, accessed March 11 2019.
  52. Pantazis, C. and Pemberton, S. (2009) ‘From the “old” to the “new” suspect community: Examining the impacts of recent UK counter-terrorist legislation’, British Journal of Criminology, 49(5): 646–666.Google Scholar
  53. Pratt, J. (2017) ‘Risk Control, Rights and Legitimacy in the Limited Liability State’, British Journal of Criminology, 57(6): 1322–1339.Google Scholar
  54. Quarshi, F. (2018) ‘The Prevent strategy and the UK ‘war on terror’: embedding infrastructures of surveillance in Muslim communities,’ Palgrave Communications, 4(17).Google Scholar
  55. Quinn, B. (2016) ‘Nursery raised fears of radicalization over boy’s cucumber drawing’, The Guardian, 11 March.Google Scholar
  56. Qureshi, A. (2017) ‘Our Criticism of Prevent is Based on Facts, not Myths’, Al Jazeera. Available at, accessed 8 April 2018.
  57. Ratcliffe, P. (2012) ‘Community cohesion: Reflections on a flawed paradigm’, Critical Social Policy, 32(2): 262–281.Google Scholar
  58. Raynor, P. (2016) ‘Three Narratives of Risk: Corrections, Critique and Context’, in C. Trotter, G. McIvor and F. McNeill (eds.) Beyond the Risk Paradigm in Criminal Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  59. Rights Watch UK (2016) Preventing Education? Human Rights and UK Counter-terrorism policy in schools. London: UK.Google Scholar
  60. Robinson, G. (2016) ‘The Rise of the Risk Paradigm in Criminal Justice’, in C. Trotter; G. McIvor and F. McNeill (eds.) Beyond the Risk Paradigm in Criminal Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 9–21.Google Scholar
  61. Schmid, A. (2013) Radicalization, De-radicalization, Counter-radicalization: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review. The Hague: ICCT Research Paper.Google Scholar
  62. Silber, M. and Bhatt, A. (2007) Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat. New York: NYPD Intelligence Division.Google Scholar
  63. Stenson, K. and Sullivan, R. (eds.) (2002) Crime, Risk and Justice: the politics of crime control in liberal democracies. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, J. (2018) ‘Suspect Categories, Alienation and Counterterrorism: Critically Assessing PREVENT in the UK’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–23.Google Scholar
  65. Thomas, P. (2012) Responding to the Threat of Violent Extremism: Failing to Prevent. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  66. Thomas, P. (2017) ‘Changing Experiences of Responsibilisation and Contestation within Counter-Terrorism Policies: the British Prevent Experience’, Policy and Politics, 45(3): 305–321.Google Scholar
  67. Travis, A. (2011) ‘Schools counter terrorism project reviewed’, The Guardian, 11 February.Google Scholar
  68. Travis, A. (2017) ‘Only 5% of people referred to Prevent extremism scheme get specialist help’, The Guardian, 9 November.Google Scholar
  69. Trotter, C., McIvor, G., and McNeill, F. (2016) Beyond the Risk Paradigm in Criminal Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  70. Walklate, S. and Mythen, G. (2015) Contradictions of Terrorism: Security, Risk and Resilience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Weaver, M. (2019) ‘Mass shooting of Muslims could happen in UK, says minister’, The Guardian, March 18.Google Scholar
  72. Zedner, L. (2009) Security. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations