Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reflexivity in Criminological Research pp 247–258Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Overcoming Barriers in the Criminal Justice System: Examining the Value and Challenges of Interviewing Legal Practitioners

  • Chapter

Abstract

In ‘Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure’, American Profes- sor of Law and Criminology Stephanos Bibas (2006, 911) describes the gap between those within the criminal justice system and those outside of it:

A great gulf divides insiders and outsiders in the criminal justice system. The insiders who run the criminal justice system — judges, police and especially prosecutors — have information, power and self-interests that greatly influence the criminal justice system’s process and outcomes. Outsiders — crime victims, bystanders, and most of the general public — find the system frustratingly opaque, insular and unconcerned with proper retribution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ashworth, A. (1995) ‘The Role of the Sentencing Scholar’. In C.M.V. Clarkson and R. Morgan (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.251–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. (2008) ‘Research on the Criminal Courts’. In R.D. King and E. Wincup (eds) Doing Research on Crime and Justice, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.3 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. (2009) ‘Suspended Sentences — A Judicial Perspective’ Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 9: 44–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bibas, S. (2006) ‘Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure’ New York University Law Review 81(3): 911–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowcott, O. (2013) ‘What Are Secret Courts and What Do They Mean for UK Justice?’ The Guardian, 14 June. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, I. (2005) ‘Targeted Consultations’. In B. Opeskin and D. Weisbrot (eds) The Promise of Law Reform, Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. and Francis, P. (2001) ‘Reflecting on Criminological Research’. In P. Davis, P. Francis and V. Jupp (eds) Doing Criminological Research, 2nd edn, Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp.281-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E. and Rogers, L. (1999) ‘Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing Outcomes and Processes: The Perspectives of Legal Professionals’ British Journal of Criminology 39(2): 216–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay L. (2002) ‘Negotiating the Swamp: The Opportunity and Challenge of Reflex-ivity in Research Practice’ Qualitative Research 2(2): 209–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fionda, J. (1995) Public Prosecutors and Discretion: A Comparative Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2012) ‘Provocation in New South Wales: The Need for Abolition’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2): 194–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2013a) ‘Replacing Provocation in England and Wales: A Partial Defence of Loss of Control’ Journal of Law and Society 40(2): 280–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2013b) ‘The Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder: An Argument for Judicial Discretion in England’ Criminology and Criminal justice: An International Journal 13(5): 506–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2014) Homicide Law Reform, Gender and the Provocation Defence: A Co mp a ra tive Persp ec ti ve, Basingstoke: P al grav e M a cmill an.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz-Gibbon, K. and Pickering, S. (2012) ‘Homicide Law Reform in Victoria, Australia: From Provocation to Defensive Homicide and Beyond’ British Journal of Criminology 52(1): 159–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynn, A. (2011) ‘Breaking into the Legal Culture of the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions’. In L. Bartels and K. Richards (eds) Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the Field, Victoria: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynn, A. (2012) ‘Bargaining with Justice: Victims, Plea Bargaining and the Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic)’ Monash University Law Review 37(3): 73–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynn, A. and Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2011) ‘Bargaining with Defensive Homicide: Examining Victoria’s Secret Plea Bargaining System Post Law Reform’ Melbourne University Law Review 35(3): 905–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobo, G. (2011) ‘Ethnography’. In D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 15–34. Justice and Security Act 2013 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission (2003) Partial Defences to Murder: Summary Paper, Consultation Paper No 173, London: The Law Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission (2005) A New Homicide Act for England and Wales? Consultation Paper No 177, London: The Law Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, G. (2005) How Judges Sentence, Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2008) Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide: Proposals for Reform of the Law: Consultation Paper CP19/08, London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, A. (1994) ‘The Justifications of “Justice”: Legal Practitioners’ Accounts of Negotiated Case Settlements in Magistrates Courts’ British Journal of Criminology 34(4): 411–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelken, D. (2010) Comparative Criminal Justice, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington, M. (2005) ‘Research’. In B. Opeskin and D. Weisbrot (eds) The Promise of Law Reform, Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R.A. (2008) How Judges Think, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K. (2011) ‘Interviewing Elites in Criminological Research: Negotiating Power and Access and Being Called “Kid”’. In L. Bartels and K. Richards (eds) Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the Field, Victoria: The Federation Press, pp.68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Advisory Council. (2007) Sentencing Indication and Specified Sentencing Discounts, Melbourne, VIC: Sentencing Advisory Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Advisory Council. (2009) Maximum Penalties for Sexual Penetration with a Child under 16: Consultation Paper, Melbourne, VIC: Sentencing Advisory Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E., Stubbs, J. and Tolmie, J. (2012a) ‘Defences to Homicide for Battered Women: A Comparative Analysis of Laws in Australia, Canada and New Zealand’ Sydney Law Review 34: 467–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E., Stubbs, J. and Tolmie, J. (2012b) ‘Battered Women Charged with Homicide in Australia, Canada and New Zealand: How Do They Fare?’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(3): 383–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, T., Hester, M. and Malos, E. (2005) ‘Methodolog’’, Feminism and Gender Violence’. In T. Skinner, M. Hester, and E. Malos (eds) Researching Gender Violence: Feminist Methodology in Action, Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, J. (2008) ‘Critical Criminological Research’. In T. Anthony and C. Cuneen (eds) The Critical Criminology Companion, Annan dale, NSW: Hawkins Press, pp.6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, J. and Tolmie, J. (2008) ‘Battered Women Charged with Homicide: Advancing the Interests of Indigenous Women’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Cri m in o logy 41: 138–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2004) Defences to Homicide: Final Report, Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, L. (1998) Black Judges on Justice: Perspective from the Bench, New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, CK. and Quick, O.L. (2012) ‘Partial Reform of Partial Defences: Developments in England and Wales’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45: 337–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaiwalla, S. (2013) ‘Secret Courts: Justice Conducted Behind Closed Doors Is Not Justice at All’ The Guardian, 19 August.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kate Fitz-Gibbon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Loughborough University, UK

    Karen Lumsden (Senior Lecturer in Sociology) (Senior Lecturer in Sociology)

  2. University of East London, UK

    Aaron Winter (Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice) (Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice)

Copyright information

© 2014 Kate Fitz-Gibbon

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2014). Overcoming Barriers in the Criminal Justice System: Examining the Value and Challenges of Interviewing Legal Practitioners. In: Lumsden, K., Winter, A. (eds) Reflexivity in Criminological Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137379405_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation