Blog

CONVICT CRIMINOLOGY FOR THE FUTURE translated into Portuguese & published as A CRIMINOLOGIA DOS CONDENADOS E O FUTURO

This week Francesca Vianello’s (University of Padua) and my edited book Convict Criminology for the Future was published as A Criminologia dos Condenados E O Futuro, by Brazilian publisher Tirant Lo Branch. During this process, not only were we significantly assisted by respected Brazilian Criminologist Dr. Maria Lucia Karam, who graciously and masterfully translated the book into Portuguese, but Dr. Sacha Darke of Westminster University, and Aline Gostinski, Editor, Tirant Lo Blanch helped us too.

By way of background, Convict Criminology for the Future, published earlier this year by Routledge, had its origins in a two day conference that was held in May/June 2019 at the University of Padua. We are grateful to our contributors who produced excellent chapters.

Now that the book has been translated into Portuguese, A Criminologia dos Condenados E O Futuro, will be most useful to Portuguese speaking students and scholars of criminology/criminal justice and corrections, journalists, prison activists, and relevant policy makers, legislators, and practitioners (i.e., especially individuals who work in correctional facilities) or those who are incarcerated.

Among the ten countries where Portuguese is the principle language, the book may find its greatest utility in Brazil and Portugal, countries that have some of the highest numbers of people who are incarcerated.

In general, the Brazilian and Portuguese prisons are a study in contrasts. In Portugal (with a prison population of 11,463, and ranked approximately 137 in number of prisoners per 100,000 population), largely because the country is part of the European Economic Union, the correctional institutions are generally safe, there are rehabilitative programs in place, and overall the treatment is humane.

The Brazilian prison system, on the other hand, (with 759,518 people incarcerated, and ranked approximately 19th in number of prisoners per 100,000 population), is the third largest in terms of number of people incarcerated (just behind the United States and the Peoples Republic of China). Inmates experience routine violence, crowding and overcrowding, and occasional riots happen in many Brazilian correctional facilities. Brazilian prisons are typically understaffed, have poor food and health care. Many of the detainees have been swept up in the Brazilian state’s war on drugs.

And many of the people who are incarcerated in the Brazilian prison system are awaiting trial. For one reason or another, they do not have legal representation, so they are in prison until their day in court. Some of them are just languishing in the correctional facilities, way past the date they were supposed to be released.

Over the past decade a number of Brazilian criminologists and lawyers have been introduced to Convict Criminology scholarship and pedagogy. And it’s our hope that A Criminologia dos Condenados E O Futuro, will be useful for them.

We also hope that the translation of our book into Portuguese will increase discussions regarding not just the role of convicts and exconvicts in the scholarly study of Criminology/Criminal Justice, including much needed reforms, but it will serve as a catalyst to greater cross-national co-operation in addressing the challenges faced by individuals who are incarcerated seeking to pursue post graduate studies behind bars and upon exit.

Three cheers for divisions in learned societies

One of the principle concepts in the field of cell biology is mitosis.

This natural process occurs when a cell or organism splits into two.

A similar situation happens in many learned societies (e.g., American Sociological Association, American Political Science Association, etc.).

Over time, as knowledge accumulates and new people study a phenomenon, they may feel that their interests would be better served if they joined or formed a brand new unit of a learned society under the auspices of the parent organization.

Along with likeminded members, they may start by holding their own panels, and progress to constructing a website, producing a newsletter or journal, and holding their own social. Down the road, they may even split away from the host organization.

Creating and managing a subdivision, especially if it’s done in a professional manner, can be a lot of time consuming work for individuals and groups considering this option. Nevertheless divisions in major learned organizations provide numerous benefits both for the parent organization and for individual members.

For the large learned organization, it is a way to devolve some the responsibilities for communicating, educating, and socializing members into the wider learned society and professional culture of the profession.

Just like extracurricular groups in high school and universities, subdivisions of learned organizations often:

• Minimize alienation felt by new and existing members of the larger organization. People who are new to the learned society may find a subdivision to be an easier point of access to the larger learned society. They may find others similar to themselves much quicker, than by bouncing around the larger learned society.
• Enable members to gain valuable leadership and management experience in a low risk environment. Most subdivisions have lots of openings for positions that few members want to do (e.g., treasurer, secretary, etc.). Much of the experienced gained in working in these positions are transferable to academic positions like chairs of departments, assistant deans etc.
• Assist in the development of members and the profession.
• Facilitate another opportunity for the mentoring of graduate students and junior faculty
• Allows additional publication opportunities (i.e., outlets) to members, especially junior ones, like graduate students.
• Experiment with new forms of member engagement that might be more challenging for the parent organization to accomplish. In this case smaller typically means nimbler.

Divisions are not perfect, but their benefits usually outweigh any negative arguments against their establishment. And when a division of a learned organization outlives its utility, they will eventually be shut down.

Photo

Painting “Hip, Hip, Hurrah! Artists’ Party in Skagen” (1888),
by Peder Severin Krøyer,
in Gothenberg’s Museum of Art.

Should scholars have to ask for honorariums? It depends

This past week, in a small corner of the twitterverse, a mild storm erupted. This squall centered on a reply written by a junior African American faculty member. The academic, who works at a top ten private university, expressed displeasure with being asked to give a face-to-face lecture at another university, (not in a conference venue), in his area of expertise, and not be paid an honorarium as compensation or recognition for his time and effort.

Judging by the numerous responses and some of the tangents that posters engaged in, regardless of the scholarly discipline, the issue about giving uncompensated papers, speeches or talks at an external venue was bounded by six main arguments. Although not the result of a rigorous content analysis, here is what I believe were the principal arguments of the posters:

Delivering speeches without the expectation of honoraria takes place in lots of fields beyond academia

Some people said that giving talks for free to external audiences is not unique to academia and happens in both the nonprofit and corporate world. The implication here is academics should not feel singled out.

Giving free talks to external audiences is what scholars do

Other replies argued that our profession, regardless of payment, or how much or how little we are paid, requires and enables us to do this sort of free labor. Thus, we should not expect to be compensated for giving uncompensated talks to external audience. By extension the dissemination of our ideas should take primacy over economic compensation.

Giving papers to external audiences increases our prestige and network, thus getting an honorarium should be a secondary consideration

Some of the responders indicated that giving speeches (without remuneration) is an excellent opportunity to showcase our work, disseminate our ideas, possibly help us to improve our reputation (thus value) both at our university and beyond, part of the activism they engage in, and refusing to give a paper primarily because an external venue refuses to pay an honorarium is counterproductive to your career.

Some institutions don’t have money in their budgets to give speakers an honorarium

Another argument was that some institutions where you might give a talk may not have the budget to pay honorariums to external speakers. Although this may be true, with some colleges and universities, the labor involved in setting up and receiving an honorarium, regardless of how paltry it may be, is often a nightmare of epic proportions. It requires those extending the invitation to coordinate with “the right people” in the organization, to give them the correct form/s to fill out, the correct way etc. In the end the inviter, may not want to go through the hassle, and just tells the speaker that there is no honorarium.

People of Color (POC) are exploited by academic institutions and lack of honorariums hits POC more than it does white scholars

Another frequent reply suggested that minority faculty are often asked by their departments, colleges, and universities to do more uncompensated service than their white colleagues. This exploitation exists in some part because POC academics are asked to serve on or chair “diversity” committees, searches, and participate on university panels that bring attention to “racial disparities” in some shape or form, etc. The logical extension of this argument was that POC academics are disproportionately asked to give papers at external institutions in which their efforts are uncompensated (i.e., no honorarium) than their white counterparts.

Academics are expected to donate lots of free labor or non-compensated service

Among the most constant arguments were that as academics, most people do not know the kinds and amount of “uncompensated” service that faculty do in their departments, colleges, university, for their learned organizations and in the community. And if they did they would be surprised.

Few people outside of academia, realize that doing service usually competes against the instructing and research that are the core of our professional responsibilities at our academic institutions.

Over the past few years, this squabble has come to head, in the case of peer reviewing papers for academic journals owned by multinational corporations (with expectations of increasingly rapid turnaround times) that make money off our free labor, or even rich foundations, that ask us to review grant proposals.

Summing up: Moving on

What’s clear is that there is considerable misperception both inside and outside academia about the kind of work and incentive structures of academics, and the variety of institutions from R1 to comprehensive.

It’s our choice however if we want to give a lecture to a colleagues’ class, or a public presentation at another venue. And over the years some targets where we give these lectures have sometimes paid us an honorarium or even a speaking fee. Hell they may have even taken us out to a fancy dinner or two.

In most cases, however, the honoraria are seldom adequate for the time and effort on travel, and honoraria vary from one location to another.

The need or desire by faculty to do uncompensated speeches at other institutions is ultimately a personal cost benefit calculation. It depends on how you perceive your role as an academic (is it just a job or is it a career), your perceived status, competing demands on your time, including the predicted or actual amount of disruption you may incur to your life (i.e., cancelling or rescheduling of classes), and perhaps disruption to your significant other, families, or pet may experience, including other resources you will expend getting there and back and your competing demands at any given time.

I think it’s okay to ask for an honorarium, but at the same time I don’t believe that we should expect to receive one either.

That being said, we should also not feel constrained about saying ‘no’.

Photo Credit

Richard P. Feynman letter (1965 Noble Prize recipient for physics)