Read more
This Brief takes a provocative look at existing socio-legal literature with a comparative study of terrorism control orders, focusing on how the concept of pre-emption fits within a traditional criminological framework. This timely work examines how such measures might be conceived and interpreted within a situational crime prevention approach. Over the past decade, socio-legal scholars have identified a rise in pre-emptive control mechanisms to respond to terrorism and other threats in the post-9/11 world. Many have argued that this pre-emptive rationale has been used to justify the introduction of measures that transcend established legal and risk frameworks, to deal with individuals or groups thought to pose a threat to the state or its citizens. Preventing Terrorism and Controlling Risk: A Comparative Analysis of Control Orders in the UK and Australia will be of interest to researchers in Criminology and Criminal Justice, particularly with a focus on terrorism, risk assessment, and human rights.
List of contents
_Introduction.- Legal Framework.- Criminological Insights.- From Crime Prevention to Crime Pre-emption.- Control Order Case Studies.- Discussion.
About the author
Dr. Susan Donkin is a Lecturer at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, as well as an Associate Investigator at the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, Australia. Her PhD thesis examined the pre-emptive characteristics of anti-terrorism measures, including control orders and internment, tracing their evolution within several jurisdictions. Her current research interests include Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPims) and the use of secret evidence in terrorism cases in the UK. Before moving to Australia, Susan spent several years working in the field of crime prevention, including as a Research Fellow at the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London.
Summary
This Brief takes a provocative look at existing socio-legal literature with a comparative study of terrorism control orders, focusing on how the concept of pre-emption fits within a traditional criminological framework. This timely work examines how such measures might be conceived and interpreted within a situational crime prevention approach. Over the past decade, socio-legal scholars have identified a rise in pre-emptive control mechanisms to respond to terrorism and other threats in the post-9/11 world. Many have argued that this pre-emptive rationale has been used to justify the introduction of measures that transcend established legal and risk frameworks, to deal with individuals or groups thought to pose a threat to the state or its citizens. Preventing Terrorism and Controlling Risk: A Comparative Analysis of Control Orders in the UK and Australia will be of interest to researchers in Criminology and Criminal Justice, particularly with a focus on terrorism, risk assessment, and human rights.
