Criminal justice used to be thought of as a field autonomous from politics and the economy, with the management of crime and punishment being seen as essentially the responsibility of government. However, in recent decades, policies have been adopted which blur the institutional boundaries and functions of the public sector with those of for-profit and civil society interests in many parts of the penal/welfare complex. The impact of these developments on society is contested: Proponents of the ‘neo-liberal penality thesis’ argue economic deregulation, welfare retrenchment, individualised choic ... More

Criminal justice used to be thought of as a field autonomous from politics and the economy, with the management of crime and punishment being seen as essentially the responsibility of government. However, in recent decades, policies have been adopted which blur the institutional boundaries and functions of the public sector with those of for-profit and civil society interests in many parts of the penal/welfare complex. The impact of these developments on society is contested: Proponents of the ‘neo-liberal penality thesis’ argue economic deregulation, welfare retrenchment, individualised choices – and associated responsibility – may be aligned by market forces into efficient delivery of ‘law and order’. Set against the neo-liberal penal position are arguments that the corporate sector may be no more efficient in delivering criminal justice services than is the public sector, and reliance on the profit motive to deliver criminal justice may lead to perverse incentivisation of NGOs or state agencies. It is to this debate we add our contribution. Criminal justice is an ideal sector in which to consider the implications arising from the differing incentive structures held by different institutions, both private and public, citizens, governments, social enterprise and the corporate sector. All agree on the need for criminal justice, even as they compete in the policy sphere to dictate its form and delivery.