The criminal justice system (CJS) in England and Wales went through extensive reform under the Coalition Government of 2010-2015.


Authors

Chris FoxJon Bannister, Poppy MIszczak

Abstract

Purpose

The criminal justice system (CJS) in England and Wales went through extensive reform under the Coalition Government of 2010-2015. In this paper, and through the lens of policing, prisons and probation, the authors set out to identify the direction and qualities of these reforms. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors review key policy documents produced by the Coalition Government as well as relevant critiques. The authors concentrate on policing, prisons and probation on the basis that interrogation of these major aspects of the CJS should enable the principles underpinning the Coalition’s approach to the CJS to be discerned.

Findings

The authors identify key themes, and their contradictions, that emerged in the Coalition Government’s approach to the CJS, these being: devolution and centralism; marketization with a growing emphasis on payment by results; politicisation and de-politicisation; and, evidence-based policy.

Research limitations/implications

This is a review of recent government policy and as such some of the implications and outcomes resulting from that policy are not yet clear.

Practical implications

This paper will be of particular use to those working in or studying UK criminal justice policy. Given that the majority partner in the Coalition went on to form the current government policy trends from the recent Coalition are likely to have some relevance to current government policy making in the CJS.

Originality/value

To date there have only been limited attempts to identify key policy trends emerging from the Coalition Government.

Publication link

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SC-11-2015-0039

Fox, C., Bannister, Jon. and Miszczak, P. (2016) ‘The 2010-2015 coalition and criminal justice: continuities and contradictions’, Safer Communities, Vol. 15(2) pp.110 – 120