Search results
This book examines the changing role of victims of crime in the Irish criminal process. It documents the variety of ways in which victims of crime are now being written into the criminal process discourse and practice in Ireland, while taking account of existing challenges. The book seeks to show how the justice system is emerging from hegemonic dominance and examines the conditions which have made their re-emergence possible and the commitments, practices and strategic priorities shaping this inclusionary momentum. It demonstrates how the paradigm of prosecuting and investigating crime moved from an intensely local, unstructured and victim-precipitated arrangement to a structured, adversarial, state-monopolised event where the accused was largely silenced and the victim was rendered invisible. The book documents the black-letter, technocratic details of how victims have been juridically provided for since the late 1980s in Ireland. It then focuses on service rights which complement the legal rights which victims of crime have been afforded in Ireland. The book also charts the challenges which continue to face service users, providers and the wider criminal justice sector in the delivery of services which are responsive to the needs of victims and meet increased demands under the EU Directive on Victims' Rights. Innovative policy options adopted in other jurisdictions, including the creation of an Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and measures to unify service provision within the sector, including Witness Care Units, are also explored.
possibility of instability. Certainly the discourse associated with the narrative of the European Republic continues to hold a powerful discursive dominance – but it is no longer the hegemonic dominance that might have been seen to pertain ten to European ambitions and obligations fifteen years ago. Following the initial discursive struggle surrounding the state’s applications for membership and subsequent referendum, Ireland’s place in the European project was successfully presented and widely accepted as being inevitable and valuable, with all other counter claims
extend the reach of rights in the criminal process to include victims of crime. Though the Convention does not explicitly refer to victims of crime, the European Court of Human Rights has placed obligations on member states under Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (degrading treatment), 6 (fair trial) and 8 (private life). Such interpretations help to identify more concrete rights for victims of crime, and act as a powerful counterpoint to the hegemonic dominance of State/accused relations. All of this impetus is largely inclusionary. The ‘axis of individualisation’ in
hegemonic grammar. Instead of subverting or shaking the hegemonic dominance, their move towards the centre may betray their subaltern experience. Selective contestation and conformity is an essential part of the strategy for subaltern societies to be more globally competitive. It's important to bear in mind that there is competition among Global South communities as well. As discussed further in Chapter 5 , the choice of partnership in science is often enmeshed with wider regional politics (Sleeboom-Faulkner, 2019 ). Compliance with Western standards
Bordering intimacy is a study of how borders and dominant forms of intimacy, such as family, are central to the governance of postcolonial states such as Britain. The book explores the connected history between contemporary border regimes and the policing of family with the role of borders under European and British empires. Building upon postcolonial, decolonial and black feminist theory, the investigation centres on how colonial bordering is remade in contemporary Britain through appeals to protect, sustain and make family life. Not only was family central to the making of colonial racism but claims to family continue to remake, shore up but also hide the organisation of racialised violence in liberal states. Drawing on historical investigations, the book investigates the continuity of colonial rule in numerous areas of contemporary government – family visa regimes, the policing of sham marriages, counterterror strategies, deprivation of citizenship, policing tactics, integration policy. In doing this, the book re-theorises how we think of the connection between liberal government, race, family, borders and empire. In using Britain as a case, this opens up further insights into the international/global circulations of liberal empire and its relationship to violence.
Statham’s oddities of language and his unreconstructed aggression, he seems no stranger than the wildly various multi-ethnicity of the characters around him. There is no real hegemonic dominance for Statham to react against and so his Englishness, and his mock-cockney persona, operate at the characteristic level of pastiche, a source mainly for humour. This seems to be confirmed by
(553): she becomes an exhibit, the ‘Melbourne Jew’ (599) whose function it is to explain that the exhibition is based on lies, the dissident contained by hegemonic dominance. One such lie is blatantly clear on the sign of Herbert’s cage door which states that he is 139 years old: ‘It also says I was born in 1886, but there are no complaints.’ The implication of this is that the chronology does not add up: either the novel is set in 2025, which seems unlikely despite the futuristic elements of the last section, or the door sign is a blatant lie which the exhibition
, sharpening race distinctions and making more rigid the social and sexual boundaries between white and black populations. Ruling-class whites deployed perceived racial differences as a means of imposing and strengthening their hegemonic dominance and control of Barbadian society. The maintenance of social distance between whites and blacks required that sexual relations became a matter for regulation. Barbadian
century, the music hall had replaced the minor theatres’ position as the overriding threat to the cultural, economic and hegemonic dominance of the dramatic theatres. The music hall’s increasingly persuasive bid to obtain a ‘free trade’ in drama (to fall within the same licensing laws and even the same licensing body as the dramatic theatres), as opposed to the dramatic theatre’s adamantly protectionist response, not only demonstrates the deep-rooted historical divide between the ‘dramatic’ and the ‘popular’ theatres of the late nineteenth century but also further
ideology’ (Gamble, 1996: 20). By the mid-1990s it was clear that a radical and enduring ideological shift had occurred in the Conservative Party, with Thatcherism assuming a position of hegemonic dominance. The main features of the Thatcherite outlook are well known: a neo-liberal approach to economic issues, a moralistic social authoritarianism and a commitment to a rather narrow conception of national sovereignty, manifested particularly as Euroscepticism (Gamble, 1994; Heppell, 2002). Thatcherism was more than an ideological viewpoint, however. It was also a