Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Commodifying Justice: Discursive Strategies Used in the Legitimation of Infringement Notices for Minor Offences

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines discursive strategies used by police and politicians to describe and justify the application of penalty notices to minor criminal offences. Critical discourse analysis is used as an analytical tool to show how neoliberal economic thinking has informed the prism through which infringement notices have been rationalised as a legitimate alternative to traditional criminal prosecution, while also highlighting the contradictions inherent in neoliberalism as an ideology through which to view the embrace of legally hybrid powers in the criminal justice system. Discursive strategies identified in the article include the use of ideological keywords ordinarily associated with free market economics and managerial efficiency; the adoption of militaristic vocabulary and metaphors in representations of policing and space; the strategies of assimilation and formulation to represent police views as uniform and coherent; and the use of nominalisations to legitimise the lack of procedural safeguards attached to infringement notices. The logic of—and the language ordinarily associated with—the domain of private business, the ‘free market’, and deregulation has infiltrated the criminal justice sphere. In addition, the naturalisation of neoliberal economic discourse in political and police representations of infringement notices produces and sustains important ideological effects, by disguising the ways in which the expanded use of administrative sanctions in public order policing intensifies state power at the expense of due process of law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Civil injunctions exist alongside Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) and Community Protection Notices (CPNs), and replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. ASBOs remain in use in Scotland [63].

  2. This jurisdiction was chosen due to the availability of data including police interviews and the fact that it is the most recent jurisdiction to introduce criminal infringement notices in Australia. As at the time of writing, CCINs in WA can be issued by police for two criminal offences: stealing property up to the value of $500 and disorderly conduct. The ‘modified penalty’ payable upon receipt of an infringement notice for either offence is $500 (discussed in Sect. 4, below).

  3. The debates date from 8 September 2010, when the Criminal Code Amendment (Infringement Notices) Bill 2010 was first debated in the Parliament of Western Australia, to 25 March 2015, when the CCIN scheme was eventually implemented in Western Australia. The 4.5-year delay was due to the length of time it took to develop appropriate technology with which police could issue and record CCINs.

  4. The interviews were conducted by the author with police in December 2018 in Western Australia, which was made possible with funding by a University of Technology Sydney Early Career Research Grant. The transcripts have been de-identified to maintain the anonymity of the police officers interviewed. I acknowledge and express my appreciation for the role and cooperation of WA Police Force in conducting this research. The analysis in this article does not necessarily represent the policies or views of the WA Police Force.

  5. The parent or guardian of the child was made liable to pay the penalty notice.

  6. Unlike in NSW where the recipient must be at least 18 years of age, a CCIN recipient in WA need only have attained the age of seventeen [11].

  7. This represented the 12-month monitoring period from the date of commencement of the legislation. CCINs were first issued by police on 30 March 2015 in a 4-month pilot in the Perth metropolitan area and the South West until 3 August, the date on which CCINs were issued across Western Australia. Due to these irregularities, the number of CCINs issued in subsequent years is likely to be greater than the 2978 issued in this first 12-month period [67].

  8. The term “offenders” is an inaccurate label to apply to CCIN recipients in light of the fact that recipients have not been found guilty before a court.

  9. Procedural justice comprises many things, including fair trial procedures, ‘neutral, consistent, rule-based’ decision-making, predictability of outcomes, transparency (including clear communication of reasons for decisions), people having the opportunity to explain their perspective, people being treated with dignity and respect, and having their rights acknowledged [61, p. 300].

  10. Analysis conducted by the WA Ombudsman found that the average fine that a magistrates court will impose for the prescribed offences is approximately $500 [67].

  11. It is important to note that Western Australia maintains a system whereby a person may be forced to “cut out” their unpaid fines by serving imprisonment. The Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Amendment Bill, which has not yet commenced, was introduced in WA Parliament in 2019 to provide that imprisonment in lieu of unpaid fines may only be by order of a magistrate in limited circumstances.

  12. CCINs are currently not served ‘on the spot’ but usually by post [67].

References

  1. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, United Kingdom. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/contents/enacted.

  2. Ashworth, Andrew. 2013. Penalty notices for disorder and summary justice. Criminal Law Review 11: 869–870.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beckett, Katherine, and Naomi Murakawa. 2012. Mapping the shadow carceral state: Toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theoretical Criminology 16 (2): 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480612442113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bell, Emma. 2011. Criminal Justice and Neoliberalism. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant. 2001. NewLiberalSpeak: Notes on the new planetary vulgate. Radical Philosophy 105: 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, David, Chris Cunneen, and Sophie Russell. 2017. ‘It's all about the Benjamins’: Infringement notices and young people in New South Wales. Alternative Law Journal 42 (4): 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x17732703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Coates, Samantha, Paula Kautt, and Katrin Mueller-Johnson. 2009. Penalty notices for disorder: Influences on police decision making. Journal of Experimental Criminology 5 (4): 399–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9084-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford, Adam. 2009. Governing through anti-social behaviour: Regulatory Challenges to criminal justice. British Journal of Criminology 49 (6): 810–831. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cresswell, Tim. 1996. In place/out of place. Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Criminal Code Amendment (Infringement Notices) Bill 2010, Western Australia. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/bills.nsf/BillProgressPopup?openForm&ParentUNID=F80E0A54CD80E3C54825779800188972.

  12. Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913, Western Australia. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_37141.pdf/$FILE/Criminal%20Code%20Act%20Compilation%20Act%201913%20-%20%5B19-a0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement.

  13. Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, United Kingdom. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/contents.

  14. Criminal Procedure Regulations 2017, New South Wales. https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/437.

  15. Department of Justice. Court and Tribunal Services. 2019. Outstanding fines and infringements. https://www.courts.justice.wa.gov.au/_apps/outstandingfines/Default.aspx?uid=1526-7905-9176-1042. Accessed 6 March 2020.

  16. Deukmedjian, John Edward. 2013. Making sense of neoliberal securitization in urban policing and surveillance. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 50: 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dixon, David. 1997. Law in policing: Legal regulation and police practices. New York: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Douglas, Mary. 1984. Purity and danger. An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Duff, R.A. 2010. Perversions & Subversions of Criminal Law. In The boundaries of the Criminal Law, ed. R.A. Duff, Lindsay L. Farmer, S.E. Marshall, Massimo M. Renzo, and Victor V. Tadros, 88–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fairclough, Norman. 1993. Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The Universities. Discourse and Society 4: 133–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feeley, Malcolm, and Jonathan Simon. 1994. Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In The futures of criminology, ed. David Felken, 173–201. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994, Western Australia. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_336_homepage.html.

  25. Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977–1978. Trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

  26. Fowler, Roger, and Gunther Kress. 1979. Critical linguistics. In Language and control, ed. Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Tony Trew, and Bob Hodge, 185–213. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fox, Richard. 1995. Criminal justice on the spot: Infringement penalties in Victoria. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fox, Richard. 1995. On punishing infringements sentencing: Some key issues: Chapter II. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 13: 7–38.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grace, Sara Katrina. 2014. Swift, simple, effective justice? Examining the use and impact of penalty notices for disorder. PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/5648/.

  30. Harvey, David. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Harvey, David. 2006. Neo-Liberalism as creative destruction. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 88: 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hogg, Russell, and David Brown. 1998. Rethinking Law and Order. Annandale: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Holborow, Marnie. 2013. Neoliberal keywords and the contradictions of an ideology. In Neoliberalism and applied linguistics, ed. David Block, John Gray, and Marnie Holborow, 33–55. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holborow, Marnie. 2013. What is neoliberalism? In Neoliberalism and applied linguistics, ed. David Block, John Gray, and Marnie Holborow, 14–32. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson, Rob. 2010. Media Statement: Police to give on-the-spot fines for minor crimes: Parliament of WA. https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2010/09/Police-to-give-on-the-spot-fines-for-minor-crimes.aspx.

  36. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Elena. 2015. Day-fines: Should the rich pay more? Review of Law & Economics 11 (3): 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2014-0045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kraska, Peter B. 2007. Militarization and policing-its relevance to 21st century police. Policing 1 (4): 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pam065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lacey, Nicola, and Lucia Zedner. 2017. Criminalization: Historical, legal, and criminological perspectives. In The Oxford handbook of criminology, ed. Alison Liebling, Shadd Maruna, and Lesley McAra, 57–76. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams (eds.). 2010. Counter-terrorism and beyond: The culture of law and justice after 9/11. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  41. MacFarlane, Joseph, and Greg Stratton. 2016. Marginalisation, managerialism and wrongful conviction in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 27: 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Luisa, Martin Rojo, and Alfonso del Percio. 2019. Neoliberalism, language, and governmentality. In Language and neoliberal governmentality, ed. Martin Rojo Luisa and Alfonso del Percio, 1–25. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  43. McBarnet, Doreen. 1981. Conviction: The law, the state and the construction of justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. McNamara, Luke, and Julia Quilter. 2016. The ‘Bikie Effect’ and other forms of demonisation: The origins and effects of hyper-criminalisation. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 34: 5–35.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Methven, Elyse. 2018. ‘A Very Expensive Lesson’: Counting the costs of penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 26 (2): 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2014.12036018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Methven, Elyse. 2019. Cheap and efficient justice? Neoliberal discourse and criminal infringement notices. University of Western Australia Law Review 45: 65–98.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Methven, Elyse, and David Carter. 2018. Serious crime prevention orders. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 28 (2): 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2016.12036070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Neocleous, Mark. 2000. The fabrication of social order: A critical theory of police power. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. New South Wales. 2002. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Council. 4 June 2002. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardFull.aspx#/DateDisplay/HANSARD-1820781676-26672/HANSARD-1820781676-26643.

  50. NSW Law Reform Commission. 2012. Penalty Notices. February 2012. Report 132. https://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report-132.pdf.

  51. NSW Ombudsman. 2005. On the Spot Justice? The Trial of Criminal Infringement Notices by NSW Police. Report to Parliament April 2005. https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/news-and-publications/publications/reports/police/on-the-spot-justice-the-trial-of-criminal-infringement-notices-by-nsw-police.

  52. O’Malley, Pat. 2009. The currency of justice: Fines and damages in consumer societies. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Pennycook, Alastair. 2001. Critical applied linguistics: A critical introdu. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Police. Western Australia. 2017. Criminal Code Infringement Notices. https://www.police.wa.gov.au/About-Us/News/Criminal-Code-Infringement-Notices. Accessed 3 October 2019.

  55. Raine, John W., and Michael J. Willson. 1995. New public management and criminal justice. Public Money & Management 15 (1): 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969509387854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Roberts, Rebecca, and Richard Garside. 2005. Punishment before justice? Understanding penalty notices for disorder. Briefing 1. London: Crime and Society Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Saunders, Bernadette, Gaye Lansdell, Anna Eriksson, and Meredith Brown. 2014. The impact of the Victorian infringements system on disadvantaged groups: Findings from a qualitative study. Australian Journal of Social Issues 49 (1): 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sentas, Vicki, and Rebecca McMahon. 2018. Changes to police powers of arrest in New South Wales. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 25 (3): 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2014.12035998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Simester, Andrew P., and Andrew Von Hirsch. 2006. Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions. In Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour, ed. Andrew P. Simester, 173–194. Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Traffic Act Amendment Bill 1968, Western Australia. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a145904.html.

  61. Tyler, Tom R. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of social issues 62 (2): 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. UK Government. 2019. Punishments for antisocial behaviour. Courts, sentencing and tribunals. https://www.gov.uk/civil-injunctions-criminal-behaviour-orders. Accessed 17 August 2019.

  64. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2009. Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 144–161. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  66. WA Government. 2015. Police back on the beat after red tape slashed: Government of Western Australia. https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/11/Police-back-on-the-beat-after-red-tape-slashed.aspx. Accessed 6 March 2020.

  67. Ombudsman, W.A. 2017. A report on the monitoring of the infringement notices provisions of The Criminal Code. Final Report. Perth: Ombudsman Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wacquant, Loïc. 2010. Crafting the Neoliberal state: Workfare, prisonfare, and social insecurity. Sociological Forum 25 (2): 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01173.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. The Guardian. 2015. Aboriginal woman in WA fined $500 for stealing $6.75 box of tampons. 15 October 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/15/aboriginal-woman-in-wa-fined-500-for-stealing-675-box-of-tampons. Accessed 6 March 2020.

  70. Walsh, Tamara. 2008. Poverty, police and the offence of public nuisance. Bond Law Review 20 (2): 198–215.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Walsh, Tamara. 2018. Won't pay or can't pay? Exploring the use of fines as a sentencing alternative for public nuisance type offences in Queensland. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 17 (2): 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2005.12036351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ward, Jenni. 2014. Transforming ‘summary justice’ through police-led prosecution and ‘virtual courts’ is ‘procedural due process’ being undermined? British Journal of Criminology 55: 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Western Australia. 1968. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Assembly. 19 September 1968. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hansard1870to1995.nsf/vwMainBackground/19680919_Assembly.pdf/$File/19680919_Assembly.pdf.

  74. Western Australia. 2010. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Assembly. 8 September 2010. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hansard.nsf/.

  75. Western Australia. 2011. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Council. 23 February 2011. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/6C6AC1D67696DC3448257842002F60CB/$File/C38%20S1%2020110223%20All.pdf.

  76. Western Australia. 2013. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Assembly. 7 May 2013. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/F3BE993D91A2E02648257B6A00123550/$File/A39%20S1%2020130507%20All.pdf.

  77. Western Australia. 2015. Parliamentary Debates. Legislative Assembly. 25 March 2015. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/66CFFA8A94BC86E548257E2D002E1BC6/$File/A39%20S1%2020150325%20All.pdf.

  78. Whittaker, Alison. 2018. The unbearable witness, seeing: A case for indigenous methodologies in Australian Soft Law. Pandora’s Box 25: 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Elyse Methven

Authors
  1. Elyse Methven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elyse Methven.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Methven, E. Commodifying Justice: Discursive Strategies Used in the Legitimation of Infringement Notices for Minor Offences. Int J Semiot Law 33, 353–379 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09710-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09710-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation