This article is about the place of those sentenced in criminal justice sanctions. Specifically, it reports on the findings of a co-productive qualitative inquiry that sought to explore the place and possibility of service user co-production within justice sanctions, drawing on the experience of people with convictions. The conclusion of the article is that participation and co-production matters in justice sanctions. The detail and implications of this conclusion are discussed.
AlcoffL (1991) The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique20: 5–32.
2.
ArnsteinS (1971) The ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute57(1): 176–182.
3.
BeresfordP (2012) The theory and philosophy behind user involvement. In: BeresfordPCarrS (eds) Social Care, Service Users and User Involvement. London: Jessica Kingsley, 6–17.
4.
BottomsA (2001) Compliance and community penalties. In: BottomsAGelsthorpeLRexS (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan, 87–116.
5.
BottomsAEMcWilliamsW (1979) A non-treatment paradigm for probation practice. British Journal of Social Work9(2): 159–202.
6.
BovairdT (2007) Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review67(5): 846–860.
BovairdTLoefflerE (2012) From engagement to co-production: How users and communities contribute to public services. In: PestoffVBrandsenTVerschuereB (eds) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production. London: Routledge, 35–60.
9.
BoyleDHarrisM (2009) The Challenge of Co-production: How Equal Partnerships between Professionals and the Public Are Crucial to Improving Public Service. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
10.
CarlenP (2012) Against rehabilitation; for reparative justice. In: O’BrienECarringtonKTauriJ (eds) Crime, Justice and Social Democracy: International Perspectives. London: Palgrave, 89–104.
11.
ChristieN (1977) Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology17: 1–15.
12.
Clinks (2008) Unlocking potential: How offenders, former offenders and their families can contribute to a more effective criminal justice system. Available at: http://www.clinks.org/unlocking-potential (accessed 24 January 2014).
CrawfordA (2002) In the hands of the public?Relational Justice Bulletin13: 6–8.
15.
DhaliwalRHarrowerJA (2009) Reducing prisoner vulnerability and providing a means of empowerment: Evaluating the impact of a listener scheme on the listeners. British Journal of Forensic Practice11(3): 35–43.
DzurAW (2012) Participatory democracy and criminal justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy6(2): 115–129.
18.
EwertBEversA (2012) Co-production: Contested meanings and challenges for user organisations. In: PestoffVBrandsenTVerschuereB (eds) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production. London: Routledge, 61–78.
19.
FarrallS (2002) Long-term absences from probation: Officers’ and probationers’ accounts. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice41(3): 263–278.
20.
FeeleyMSimonJ (1992) The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology30(4): 449–474.
21.
FergusonI (2007) Increasing user choice or privatizing risk: The antinomies of personalization. British Journal of Social Work37: 387–403.
22.
FontanaAFreyJH (2005) The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 695–728.
23.
GarlandD (2002) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Clarendon: Oxford University Press.
24.
GarlandD (2015) What is wrong with penal populism?Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 9th Annual Lecture, Edinburgh, 27May.
25.
GrantS (2016) Constructing the durable penal agent: Tracing the development of habitus within English probation officers and Scottish criminal justice social workers. British Journal of Criminology56(4): 750–768.
26.
HucklesbyACorcoranM (2016) The Voluntary Sector and Criminal Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
KaufmanAS (1969) Human nature and participatory democracy. In: ConnollyWE (ed.) The Bias of Pluralism. New York: Atherton Press, 178–212.
28.
KirbyAJacobsonJHunterG (2014) Effective participation or passive acceptance: How can defendants participate more effectively in the court process? Howard League ‘What Is Justice?’ Working Paper, 9/2014.
29.
LaceyN (2007) Criminal justice and democratic systems: Inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics in the institutional structure of late modern societies. CES Working Paper, no. 148.
30.
LieblingA (2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
McAraL (2008) Crime, criminology and criminal justice in Scotland. European Journal of Criminology5(4): 481–504.
32.
McCullochT (2010) Realising potential: Community service, pro-social modelling and desistance. European Journal of Probation2(2): 3–22.
33.
McCullochT (2015) Beyond compliance: Participation, co-production and change in justice sanctions. European Journal of Probation7(1): 40–47.
34.
McIvorG (2009) Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts. Criminology and Criminal Justice9(1): 29–49.
35.
McNeillF (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice6(1): 37–60.
36.
McNeillFRobinsonG (2013) Liquid legitimacy and community sanctions. In: CrawfordAHucklesbyA (eds) Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan, 116–137.
37.
MarunaS (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
MarunaS (2006) Who owns resettlement? Towards restorative re-integration. British Journal of Community Justice4(2): 22–33.
39.
MarunaSKingA (2008) Selling the public on probation: Beyond the bib. Probation Journal55(4): 337–351.
40.
Ministry of Justice (2015) Practice Framework: National Standards for the Management of Offenders for England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.
41.
MorgensternCRobinsonG (2014) Consent and co-operation of the unfree: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Probation6(3): 203–208.
PestoffV (2012) Co-production and third sector social service in Europe: Some crucial conceptual issues. In: PestoffVBrandsenTVerschuereB (eds) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production. London: Routledge, 13–34.
44.
PestoffVBrandsenTVerschuereB (2012) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production. London: Routledge.
45.
RaynorP (2014) Consent to probation in England and Wales: How it was abolished, and why it matters. European Journal of Probation6(3): 296–307.
46.
RiessmanCK (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
47.
RobertsR (2010) Debating … Bad language in criminal justice?Criminal Justice Matters82(1): 29–34.
WeaverB (2011) Co-producing community justice: The transformative potential of personalisation for penal sanctions. British Journal of Social Work41(6): 1038–1057.
57.
WeaverB (2013) Co-producing desistance: Who works to support desistance? In: DurnescuIMcNeillF (eds) Understanding Penal Practice. Routledge Frontiers of Criminal Justice. Routledge: Abingdon, 193–205.
58.
WeaverBMcCullochT (2012) Co-producing criminal justice: Executive summary. Research Report no. 5/2012. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
59.
WilkinsonRPickettK (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin.
60.
Wing-lin LeeFMan-yung CharmL (2002) The possibility of promoting user participation in working with high-risk youth. British Journal of Social Work32: 71–92.
61.
YoungJ (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: SAGE.
62.
ZehrH (2002) The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
