100% found this document useful (1 vote)
38 views54 pages

(Ebook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice Policy Instant Download

The document discusses contemporary Canadian criminal justice policy, emphasizing its complexity and the need for a nuanced understanding of crime as a social phenomenon. It outlines the book's aim to explore pressing policy issues and the intersection of crime policy with various societal factors, while also highlighting the importance of examining the policy-making process. The contributors analyze different aspects of criminal justice policy, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of its distinctive features and challenges in Canada.

Uploaded by

speneboneteq
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
38 views54 pages

(Ebook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice Policy Instant Download

The document discusses contemporary Canadian criminal justice policy, emphasizing its complexity and the need for a nuanced understanding of crime as a social phenomenon. It outlines the book's aim to explore pressing policy issues and the intersection of crime policy with various societal factors, while also highlighting the importance of examining the policy-making process. The contributors analyze different aspects of criminal justice policy, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of its distinctive features and challenges in Canada.

Uploaded by

speneboneteq
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 54

(eBook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice Policy

download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-criminal-
justice-policy/

Download full version ebook from https://ebooksecure.com


We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer 5th


Canadian Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-criminal-
justice-a-primer-5th-canadian-edition/

(eBook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice A Primer 6th


Edition by Curt Griffiths

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-criminal-
justice-a-primer-6th-edition-by-curt-griffiths/

(eBook PDF) Criminal Investigation (Justice Series)


(The Justice Series) 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-investigation-
justice-series-the-justice-series-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Criminal Procedure (Justice Series) (The


Justice Series) 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-procedure-
justice-series-the-justice-series-3rd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice
Professional 12th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-procedure-for-
the-criminal-justice-professional-12th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Career Guide in Criminal Justice

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-career-guide-in-
criminal-justice/

(eBook PDF) Multiculturalism, Crime, and Criminal


Justice

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-multiculturalism-crime-
and-criminal-justice/

Introduction to Criminal Justice 9th Edition (eBook


PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/introduction-to-criminal-
justice-9th-edition-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Criminal Justice: The Essentials 4th


Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-justice-the-
essentials-4th-edition/
CANADIAN CRIMINAL
Justice Policy
Contemporary Perspectives

Edited by KARIM ISMAILI • JANE B. SPROTT • KIM VARMA

543941_01_Prelims.indd 1 4/16/12 1:56 PM


INTRODUCTION

Thinking about Criminal Justice


Policy in Canada
Karim Ismaili, Jane B. Sprott, and Kim Varma

Crime is a social phenomenon that touches the lives of countless Canadians on a


daily basis. It disrupts relationships, causes harm to person and property, and evokes
strong feelings and emotional responses. Crime is also a complex social phenom-
enon; it is neither easily explained nor easily addressed. Its subject matter is vast, as
are its motivations and consequences for individuals, communities, and societies.
In an increasingly interconnected world, crime spans the local and the global and
can take place in actual and virtual spaces. And since it is socially constructed,
crime is an ever-changing phenomenon: what is suitable to view as a crime, who
is suitable to cast as a criminal, and how society ultimately responds to both crime
and criminals emerge from a context that must be analyzed rather than taken for
granted (Christie, 2004, p. 10). In addition to being complex, crime and criminal
justice permeate the popular culture, occupy a dominant place in the public
imagination, and are increasingly significant topics of political and public discus-
sion in Canada. These features—along with the fact that providing for the safety
and security of its citizens is a core, if not the core, responsibility of government—
set the policies designed to address crime apart from other public policy areas,
rendering the nexus of crime and public policy fascinating to explore.
Exploring contemporary Canadian criminal justice policy is precisely what
this book aims to do. The 13 chapters that follow this introduction present the
policy-oriented research of some of the foremost thinkers on criminal justice in
Canada. The contributions tackle pressing contemporary policy issues facing the
justice system (Part I) and explore the intersection of crime policy with subject
areas that fall outside the relatively narrow and traditional confines of the criminal
justice system (Part II). Put another way, the book explores topics that have enjoyed
a long and established history of criminal justice analysis (e.g., policing, courts,
corrections, Aboriginal justice, and youth justice) with others that are newly

543941_01_Prelims.indd 8 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada ix

emergent or recast in a manner that poses unique challenges for policy-makers, for
the criminal justice system, and for society (e.g., terrorism, immigration, organized
crime, welfare, drugs, and technology). The contributors were each asked to scru-
tinize their topic through a policy lens and were guided to consider the following
sorts of questions along the way:

How did the issue come to the attention of policy-makers? Were special
interest groups advancing agendas? Was there some spectacular event? Did
bureaucrats or government officials perceive the issue as a problem? How
were policy issues defined and framed? What characterizations were domi-
nant? Was there a struggle over ideas?
What was the reform process? Who was involved? How were reforms
presented to the public? Or did the issue not even make it into the public
debate? Did the reforms succeed or fail to make it through the legislative
process?
What effect did the policy have? Did it change anything? Why or why not?
What does the future hold?
Is there a symbolic dimension to the policy?
What was the impact on those who were affected by this policy?
How did this policy affect other policies or legislation already in place? For
example, did addressing one area cause a spillover into other areas?
Were there implementation challenges?
Has the policy been evaluated? What were the findings?
How does the policy balance security, equity, liberty, and efficiency? What
does the analysis reveal about crime policy in Canada? What does it reveal
about the Canadian political system? What does it reveal about Canada’s
connection to the world?

We contend that if we explore topics through a policy lens and consider ques-
tions such as those presented above, our understanding of crime and criminal
justice in Canada can be enhanced. Through the various contributions in this
book, readers will come to appreciate some of the distinctive features of Canadian
criminal justice policy, along with other features that are shared with nations such
as Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. Highlighting these differences
and similarities is only one of the myriad reasons this book was developed. An
equally compelling rationale relates to the observation that while the study of
crime policy in Canada has matured significantly in recent years, evidence of that
maturity is not as visible as it could be. Part of the reason for this is simply because
the work of scholars and practitioners is dispersed across a wide range of academic,
governmental, and popular publication venues. Added to that is the reality that
localism and regionalism remain enduring features of Canada. As will become

543941_01_Prelims.indd 9 4/16/12 1:56 PM


x INTRODUCTION

clear, local and regional contexts matter: the lessons learned from policies pursued
in Ontario,Vancouver, or Winnipeg, for example, often resonate beyond provincial
borders, providing ample opportunity for others to learn from their experience.
This book can thus be viewed as an attempt to bring coherence and visibility to
the study of Canadian criminal justice policy via the work of experts located
across the country. Our goal is to provide a foundation from which policy-makers,
practitioners, scholars, students, and members of the public can discuss and debate
important ideas, trends, and controversies, and do so in an informed manner.
Before outlining some of the unique aspects of Canadian criminal justice
policy, we will first discuss of some key concepts and distinctive features of crim-
inal justice policy. We will provide a brief overview of the factors that have con-
tributed to the recent interest in this policy area. When these are viewed together,
it will become clear that the time has come for Canadian criminal justice policy
to establish itself as a focus of research and analysis and as an applied field of study.

The Study of Criminal Justice Policy


Some Important Concepts
Although its meaning is often variable and contingent, individuals, groups, agen-
cies, businesses, political parties, institutions, and governments use the term ‘policy’
in everyday talk and everyday action. Policy has been alternatively described as ‘a
course of action or inaction rather than specific actions or decisions’; a ‘web of
decisions and actions that allocate values’; ‘a set of interrelated decisions concern-
ing the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified
situation’; ‘a stance which, once articulated, contributes to the context within
which a succession of future decisions will be made’; and, in the words of a senior
British civil servant, ‘rather like an elephant—you recognize it when you see it but
cannot easily define it.’ The concept of policy is thus difficult to treat as a very
specific and concrete phenomenon; it requires shape and needs to be situated
(Ham & Hill, 1984, p. 11). Policy is both a process and a product: it refers to the
process of decision-making and also to the product of that process. Policy ‘may be
explicit or implicit, purposeful or accidental, decided at one time or evolve grad-
ually. Policies may constitute the sources of regularities in practice, but they also
represent initiatives which never get implemented’ (Solomon, 1981, p. 6).
The term ‘policy’ has many uses: for example, it can serve as a label for a field
of activity (e.g., criminal justice policy, educational policy, welfare policy, etc.); as a
general purpose or desired state of affairs; as a specific proposal (put forward by an
elected leader, government agency, or interest group); as a decision of government
(often arising from a crucial moment of choice); as a formal authorization (e.g., a
specific act or statute); as a program of activity (e.g., a legislative package that
includes a mandate, organizational structure, and resources); as an output (i.e., what
governments actually deliver as opposed to what is promised or envisioned); as a
product of a particular activity; as a theory (if we do X, then Y will follow); and as

543941_01_Prelims.indd 10 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xi

a process that unfolds over a period of time (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984, pp. 12–19).
Such descriptions provide insight into the sheer range of activities that constitute
policy, and serve to highlight why it is important to consider the specific context
in which the term is used.
Public policy is a decision or action of government that addresses a public problem
or issue. It is widely accepted that for a policy to be considered public policy,‘it must
to some degree have been generated or at least processed within the framework of
governmental procedures, influences and organizations’ (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984,
p. 24). Unlike the vast majority of private sector policies, public policies are funded
through public resources and backed up by the legal system. This latter feature is
particularly important to criminal justice policy, since it is the threat of sanctions—
including the loss of liberty—that is a defining characteristic in this policy area.
All public policy—including criminal justice policy—is the outcome of a pro-
cess that is important to uncover and explore. That process has been conceptual-
ized in a number of ways, with the most popular images emphasizing a series of
stages and/or a series of steps. The former might include the identification of a
problem, agenda setting, the formulation of policy proposals, policy adoption,
policy implementation, and evaluation. Deborah Stone (1988, p. 5) summarizes
the steps commonly associated with the policy process in the following manner:
‘identify objectives; identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives;
predict and evaluate the possible consequences of each alternative; select the
alternative that maximizes the attainment of objectives.’
While useful, both conceptualizations have been criticized for not capturing
the reality of the policy process. For example, policy-making rarely proceeds in a
linear and wholly rational manner.This observation has prompted the development
of alternative models that highlight the ‘somewhat anarchic’ nature of policy-­
making (Jones & Newburn, 2005, p. 61). One such model—the structured inter-
action perspective—‘does not assume a single decision-maker, addressing a clear
policy problem: it focuses on the range of participants in the game, the diversity of
their understandings of the situation and the problem, the ways in which they
interact with one another, and the outcomes of this interaction. It does not assume
that this pattern of activity is a collective effort to achieve known and shared goals’
(Colebatch, 1998, p. 102). Far from policy-making being a rational enterprise, these
models point to the volatility that is characteristic of the everyday policy-making
process. Value differences, the role of interest groups, shifts in public mood, and
decisions based on political ambitions and institutional constraints are only a few of
the many challenges encountered in contemporary policy environments. Such
forces, critics contend, make rational policy action unlikely, especially in fields like
criminal justice.The reality is more dynamic, volatile, and even chaotic.This debate
among policy researchers should not, however, diminish the importance of exam-
ining the policy process. As the political scientist Peter Solomon has noted (1981,
p. 5), such an examination can facilitate our understanding of how the political
process negotiates change, helps us identify the constraints the process places upon

543941_01_Prelims.indd 11 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xii INTRODUCTION

the translation of ideas and analysis into action, describes the degree to which vari-
ous actors influence the movement of criminal justice proposals through the policy
process, and provides insight into how politics determines what is and can be
implemented. While dominated by governments and their duly constituted public
agencies, the policy-making process is not restricted to state actors. A diverse array
of stakeholders, including those from civil society and the private sector, take an
active role in attempting to shape the substance and direction of policy (see, for
example, Hyshka, 2009).
Finally, it is important to note that crime policies have multiple purposes: they
identify and define those behaviours deemed unacceptable to society and thus
punishable by law; they nurture and support the informal social controls that
reduce the incidence of crime in society; they provide a framework through which
the formal apparatus of social control—the criminal justice system—operates; they
both authorize and constrain the behaviour of criminal justice officials; and they
trigger a course of action that can lead to the deprivation of individual liberty, the
ultimate punishment provided for in Canadian criminal law. While the criminal
justice system functions to provide safety and security where other informal social
controls have weakened or otherwise broken down, its authority must be exercised
within the rule of law and, ideally, be implemented free of favour or bias.
It will become apparent when reading the various contributions to this book
that the authors ascribe different meanings to policy, identify a range of purposes
to the policies they examine, employ different methods to study policy, and bring
a variety of theoretical perspectives to bear when examining and evaluating poli-
cies and the processes that created them. Although some may view this lack of
agreement as an impediment to sound and systematic criminal justice policy
analysis, we contend that it is an important starting point from which to build a
comprehensive understanding of the challenges and dilemmas confronting those
thinking about and working within this policy area.

Distinctive Features of Criminal Justice Policy


Observers of criminal justice have noted some distinctive features of the field that
are important to consider when embarking on policy research and analysis. While
these features are characteristic of criminal justice in most liberal democracies, the
degree to which they influence public policy varies from jurisdiction to jurisdic-
tion. For example, an ongoing debate within the criminal justice literature involves
the degree to which the state agencies and departments involved in the adminis-
tration of justice act as a coherent and unified ‘system’. Critics argue that the major
components of the system—policing, courts, and corrections—carry out their
respective mandates independently, generating systemic or institutional fragmenta-
tion. Diverse organizational objectives and differences in the use of discretionary
powers exacerbate the fragmentation, leading some to describe the criminal jus-
tice system as ‘a network of interrelated, yet independent, individuals and agencies,
rather than as a system per se’ (Griffiths & Verdun-Jones, 1994, p. 9). In such an

543941_01_Prelims.indd 12 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xiii

environment, the development of coherent criminal justice policy that reflects the
needs and expectations of each component of the ‘system’ becomes a significant
challenge. And in situations where a degree of consensus on policy is secured, dif-
ferences can often arise at the implementation phase.
A further explanation for institutional fragmentation is advanced by Nagel and
his associates, who contend that fragmentation is the result of differences in train-
ing, status, and ideology among police, courts, and corrections personnel. These
differences reflect ‘the kinds of authority relationships that exist in the sub-system
organizations. Positive sanction and normative power are more prevalent among
legally trained professionals in the system. Negative sanctions and coercive power
tend to be stressed in law enforcement and, at least in relation to custodial work,
in correctional organizations. All of these factors lead to diverse organizational
climates that surround the different components of the system’ (1983, p. 9). It is
worth noting that institutional fragmentation can also exist within subsystem
organizations. For example, it is not uncommon to find police leaders and rank-
and-file officers, or Crown counsel and defence lawyers, holding contrasting views
on important policy issues.
Because criminal law and criminal justice policy are expected to embody
fun­damental principles of society, a further distinctive characteristic of the field is
the symbolic quality of the content involved (Gusfield, 1963; Hagan, 1983; New-
burn & Jones, 2007). Crime and criminal justice are also symbols that have the
potential to arouse, widen, and deepen public interest by appealing to ideological
or moral concerns (Edelman, 1988; Scheingold, 1984, 1991). They condense a
number of stresses that people experience in their day-to-day lives, and are
powerful because they relate to the moral, ethical, and cultural concerns of the
social order (Nagel et al., 1983, p. 11). Their potential to evoke strong and often
emotional responses suggests that crime and criminal justice symbols are espe-
cially vulnerable to transformation for strategic purposes: ‘The symbolic implica-
tions of the criminal law and of law and order politics are particularly interesting
because the emotional issues involved easily lend themselves to demagogic
excesses. This is especially true in light of the fact that the workings of the crim-
inal justice system are quite complex and not well understood by the public,
which tends to oversimplify the issues that are involved’ (Nagel et al., 1983, pp.
11–12). The symbolic dimension of crime and criminal justice can also be used
strategically. Newburn and Jones recently made this point in their examination of
the international popularity of zero tolerance in contemporary criminal justice.
Zero tolerance, they argue, is now widely used by politicians, policy-makers, and
criminal justice officials ‘when there is a need to indicate strong measures and
clear resolve’ (2007, p. 222). In this sense, the term has been deployed to ‘convey
a mood and to impress an audience rather than in any concrete way to describe
a set of policies or to frame particular objectives’ (2007, p. 236). The variability of
both the meaning of criminal justice and the symbols underlying that meaning
compels an analysis of the evolving material basis of the symbol, as well as the

543941_01_Prelims.indd 13 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xiv INTRODUCTION

shifting socio-political environment in which it is lodged (Edelman, 1988; Hagan,


1983; Majchrzak, 1984).

Recent Interest in Criminal Justice Policy


The study of policy has recently emerged as an important focus within criminal
justice and criminology, a development that is part of a larger movement calling
for a more vital and engaged public criminology (see Uggen & Inderbitzen, 2010).
Paul Rock has described the movement as one that seeks ‘greater academic
engagement with “issues of public concern” in civic, policy, and political debates
about crime, criminal justice, and criminal law’ (Rock, 2010, p. 751). Its impact has
been significant and can be seen in the founding of new criminal justice policy
journals devoted to bridging ‘the gap between policy relevant findings and crim-
inal justice policy’ (Clear & Frost, 2007, p. 633), in the criminology and criminal
justice conferences that now regularly feature panels on various aspects of policy,
in the colleges and universities that have recruited faculty members and designed
policy-focused courses and programs, and in the general intellectual and financial
investments that have generated a proliferation of research on a broad range of
substantive crime policy issues.
Although complex and still unfolding, the origins of the movement can be
traced back to a three-decade–long transformation in governance that has wit-
nessed the rise of neo-liberalism in a number of Western industrialized democra-
cies (including Canada, but most notably in the United States and the UK), along
with a shift in politics that has, among other things, generated a highly charged
symbolic and politicized discourse regarding crime and criminal justice. While
there is significant national variation in the actual impact of this transformation
(see Webster and Doob’s chapter in this volume for a comparative perspective on
this issue), there is little doubt that it has ushered in a period of decline in the role
that criminological expertise plays in the policy-making process (see Haggerty,
2004). Part of this has to do with the ‘fact that in a society saturated with “crime
talk”, [criminologists] have utmost difficulty in communicating with politicians,
policy-makers, professionals and the public. Criminological reasoning is now
mediated and contested by a range of vociferous interest groups, activists and a
multitude of institutional actors and public opinions. And criminologists are alien-
ated from late modern political culture because crime, policing and punishment
are defining electoral issues’ (Chancer & McLaughlin, 2007, p. 157).
The political significance of crime has been apparent for decades. Walter Mil-
ler, writing in a seminal 1973 article, argued that ‘[i]deology is the permanent
hidden agenda of criminal justice’ (p.142). He defined ideology as a set of ‘general
and abstract beliefs or assumptions about the correct or proper state of things,
particularly with respect to the moral order and political arrangements, which
serve to shape one’s positions on specific issues’ (ibid.). The ideological basis for
criminal justice commands strong, emotional, partisan allegiance and has conse-
quences for the processes of planning, program, and policy in criminal justice

543941_01_Prelims.indd 14 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xv

(ibid.). According to Miller, the ideological right perceives excessive leniency


toward lawbreakers, the favouring of offender rights over those of victims, the ero-
sion of respect for authority, the costs of crime being unfairly born by law-abiding
citizens, and a culture of permissiveness eroding society. Those who subscribe to
this world view contend, among other things, that individuals are responsible for
their behaviour and that the moral and legal order must be enforced firmly and
fairly by duly constituted authorities. The ideological left, on the other hand, is
concerned with over-criminalization, labelling and social stigmatization, over-
institutionalization, and over-centralization and discriminatory bias in state insti-
tutions, including the criminal justice system. The result is a world view that sees
the social order as the primary cause of crime. Those on the left note that the
criminal law and its enforcement must be cognizant of social inequalities, includ-
ing the unequal distribution of power (Miller, 1973).
As a basic framework for understanding the American political context during
the tumultuous period of the late 1960s and 1970s, Miller’s work nicely captures
the fundamental ideological differences that separated Republicans (the right)
from Democrats (the left).While these ideological differences remain, they are less
stark today. Crime and disorder became a political issue, one that Republicans
convinced voters they could respond to more effectively than Democrats. Crime
was successfully framed as the rational choice of offenders, crime policy became a
matter of ‘law and order’, and a ‘get tough’ approach to offenders dominated the
operation of the criminal justice system. Politically popular, the approach was
eventually co-opted in the 1990s by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.The result
of this strategic shift by Democrats is visible in a criminal justice system and
approach to crime policy that today reflects the values of the ideological right over
the ideological left.
Whereas in the United States ideology has had a dramatic impact on criminal
justice policy and on society, its significance in Canada has been far more muted.
As will be discussed later in this chapter and throughout the book, federalism, the
judiciary, the role of the public service, and other insulating political and cultural
factors have shielded policy-makers from the highly politicized environment
found in the United States. That is not to say that ideological differences do not
exist in Canada; they do, but they have been generally less consequential from a
policy standpoint because of the moderating impact of these same insulating fac-
tors. One sees evidence of the original left/right dichotomy described by Miller
in the pronouncements and political documents disseminated by the major polit-
ical parties, with the Conservative Party occupying the right and the Liberal, New
Democratic, Bloc Québécois, and Green Parties each located to the left of the
Conservatives on the ideological spectrum. As in the United States, Canada too has
seen a drift rightward in the discourse on crime and criminal justice. This is most
apparent in campaigns and elections, which, since the mid- to late 1980s, have
routinely featured debate and discussion on crime and criminal justice, and the
response to these issues, as policy differences between political parties that matter

543941_01_Prelims.indd 15 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xvi INTRODUCTION

(see Hatt et al., 1992). While this makes for lively interchanges between political
candidates and may indeed be consequential to the public in terms of election
outcomes, the story of Canadian criminal justice is one of general resistance to the
volatility that is so often associated with ideological and partisan preferences.
Whether this will remain the case is difficult to say, and there are indications
that the resistance (or insulating factors) is weakening. This can be a source of
frustration for criminologists, who find that it is increasingly the case that empir-
ical research about crime has an uneasy relationship with the values and needs that
often dominate the world of politics and policy (Hawkesworth, 1988, ch. 3).
Indeed, the belief that scholarly knowledge alone determines policy outcomes is
naive (Laub, 2004, p. 18). If there is one lesson to be learned from the decline of
criminological influence in the contemporary period, it is that pure reason com-
petes with politics in shaping state responses to the crime ‘problem’ (Zajac, 2002,
p. 252). As Henry Ruth and Kevin Reitz have said:

There is no doubt that data and empirical evidence supply only some of
the inputs that influence the making of policy, and that they can be over-
ridden by contrary moral sentiments, the tides of cultural change, the
vagaries of politics, emotionalism, sensationalism, residual ignorance, and
the inertial forces of laziness, habit, and vested interests. All of the messiness
of real-world decision-making, even when fully acknowledged and experi-
enced, does not diminish the importance of striving for an improved
knowledge base. (2003, pp. 39–40)

The desire for crime policy to be rational and based on the best possible evi-
dence remains a basic—albeit elusive—goal for many criminologists and policy-
makers. While the increasingly complex policy environment suggests that this
goal may not be attainable, it has not deterred an influential group of criminolo-
gists to argue that ‘rational and evidence-based crime policy’ is the only way to
counter the various forces described above (see Welsh & Farrington, 2005; Mears,
2007). Those who identify with this perspective point to a variety of problems
that can be found in many criminal justice policies. Mears (2007) has noted sev-
eral such problems: the lack of an empirically justified need for the policy in the
first place; problematic design issues, such as gaps between the theory guiding the
policy and the policy ultimately pursued; implementation problems of various
sorts; the lack of evaluation, or an undue emphasis on the results of evaluations
conducted; and, finally, the lack of effective cost-benefit analyses that might serve
to guide investment decisions.Whether an evidence-based crime policy can fulfill
its ambition of using the ‘highest quality scientific evidence in the development
of public policy’ remains to be seen (Welsh & Farrington, 2005, p. 350). Neverthe-
less, we see this ambition as a further indication of how the study of criminal
justice policy can contribute to improving an underdeveloped knowledge base
and help begin to reverse the decline in influence experienced by criminologists

543941_01_Prelims.indd 16 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xvii

in recent years (Beckett, 1997; Garland, 2001; Gest, 2001; Ruth & Reitz, 2003;
Currie, 2007; Clear, 2010).

Criminal Justice Policy in Canada


Origins and Sources
In Canada, the legal authority to develop public policy flows primarily from the
Constitution Act, 1867. The Act defines a federal system of government and out-
lines the division of labour between the federal Parliament (the Parliament of
Canada) and provincial legislatures. Parliament is empowered to make laws for the
whole of Canada with respect to matters assigned to it by the Constitution. Like-
wise, a provincial legislature is empowered to make and implement laws in areas
assigned to it and which fall within its territorial borders. The distribution over
criminal matters is found primarily in sections 91(27) and 92(14) of the Constitu-
tion Act, 1867. The federal Parliament, in section 91(27), is conferred with the
power to make laws in relation to ‘the criminal law, except the constitution of
courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.’
The provincial role in criminal justice is found in section 92(14). It confers on
provincial legislatures the power to make laws in relation to ‘the administration of
justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization
of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including proced-
ure in civil matters in those courts’. The provincial responsibility for the adminis-
tration of justice authorizes the provinces to establish a provincial police service
with the power to enforce federal criminal laws, and to oversee municipal police
services insofar as they relate to municipal institutions and the administration of
justice. Jurisdiction over correctional institutions is divided between the two levels
of government: section 91(28) authorizes the federal Parliament governance over
‘penitentiaries’, which hold offenders sentenced to imprisonment for two years or
more; provinces, under section 92(16), have jurisdiction over ‘prisons’, which hold
offenders sentenced to imprisonment for less than two years. In short, the federal
government is responsible for framing the criminal law and supervising peniten-
tiaries, while the provincial governments administer the law through their respon-
sibilities for policing and the operation of the lower courts (Rock, 1986, p. 4).
The jurisdictional responsibilities assigned in Canada stand in contrast to other
federal jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia, where the criminal law
is a state responsibility. As the noted constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has noted:

The argument accepted by the United States and Australia that criminal
law should reflect local conditions and sentiments was rejected by the fath-
ers of confederation in favor of a national body of law. However . . . for the
most part, the Criminal Code is enforced by the provinces; and the deci-
sions to investigate, charge and prosecute offenses are therefore matters of
provincial policy which will no doubt be framed in response to local

543941_01_Prelims.indd 17 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xviii INTRODUCTION

conditions and sentiments. In this way, the criminal law is not as centralized
as other fields of federal legislative competence, where federal administra-
tion normally follows federal enactment. (1985, p. 398)

While the constitutional and legal authority for federal and provincial involve-
ment in criminal justice policy is entrenched in the Constitution, it would be
inaccurate to suggest that the two levels of government hold a monopoly in this
area. In practice, much of the actual development, administration, and implemen-
tation of justice policy remain in the hands of local officials and professionals, in
institutions that are effectively beyond the reach of both levels of government
(Solomon, 1981, p. 7). This can be traced back to the tradition, prominent in the
United Kingdom and Canada, of keeping the administration of justice free from
political interference. The result is judicial and law enforcement policy that is set
locally, often with unique features that can only be understood in reference to
what Solomon calls the ‘local legal culture’. Indeed, it is the local legal culture,
rather than centrally determined policy, that is often cited as the dominant ‘source
of judicial and policy practice’ (Solomon, 1981, p. 7).
Since 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has functioned as part of
Canada’s supreme law, guaranteeing ‘a set of civil liberties that are regarded as so
important that they should receive immunity, or at least special protection, from
state action’ (Hogg, 1985, p. 651). These include freedoms such as the freedom of
expression, the right to vote, mobility rights, various minority rights, and rights
guaranteeing fairness during legal proceedings. Protection of these fundamental
rights and freedoms is accomplished through the courts. If a law is challenged and
found to violate Charter rights, it is voided, thus guaranteeing that civil liberties
are protected from the actions of legislators, state agencies, and state officials. The
entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dramatically expanded the
courts’ scope of judicial review, as well as their policy-making function (the chap-
ter by Roach in this volume discusses the interplay between the courts and Parlia-
ment in the shaping of recent national security policy).
The expanded policy-making role of the courts has had a significant impact on
the administration of justice and, by extension, on the content of criminal justice
policy in Canada. Generally, cases are pursued to determine whether state action
and/or legislation violates one or more of the legal rights guaranteed in sections
7–14 of the Charter (e.g., the right to counsel, the right to be secure from unreason-
able search and seizure, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be presumed inno-
cent, and the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment). If it is
determined that violations have occurred, either through the actions of state offi-
cials or through the laws themselves, the courts can impose a remedy for those so
aggrieved (via s. 24(1) of the Charter).This provision has dramatically increased the
use of litigation as a form of interest-group activity, deeply embedding in Canada
the expression of political demands in the language of rights. Whereas traditional
interest-group activity emphasized interactions with bureaucrats, legislators,

543941_01_Prelims.indd 18 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xix

political parties, and, to a lesser extent, the courts, section 24(1) offers a path of
judicial review considerably more powerful and more accessible than was previ-
ously available to citizens. This not only provides a concrete example of how the
Charter has been transformative for individuals and groups, but also highlights the
significant impact it has had on all policy, including criminal justice policy.

The Policy Community


Public policy is shaped and influenced by a wide range of actors with a direct or
indirect interest in the policy field. These actors can include government agencies,
pressure groups, media people, and individuals, including academics, consultants,
and other ‘experts’ (Pross, 1986). Each actor occupies a role in the policy community,
which Pross defines as a ‘part of a political system that—by virtue of its functional
responsibilities, its vested interests, and its specialized knowledge—acquires a dom-
inant voice in determining government decisions in a specific field of public activ-
ity, and is generally permitted by society at large and the public authorities in
particular to determine public policy in that field’ (p. 98). The policy community
subdivides into two segments: the sub-government and the attentive public. The
sub-government is composed of government agencies and institutionalized asso-
ciations that actually make policy within the sector (Coleman & Skogstad, 1990,
p. 25). It normally consists of a very small group of people who work at the core
of the policy community. The attentive public, on the other hand, is less tightly
knit and more loosely defined. Its composition varies, but it usually contains
important, though less central, government agencies, private institutions, pressure
groups, specific interests, and individuals. As Pross states, ‘the attentive public lacks
the power of the sub-government but still plays a vital role in policy development’
(1986, p. 99). Researchers have demonstrated that the structure and function of
policy communities vary from policy field to policy field (Pross, 1986, p. 106; see
Coleman & Skogstad, 1990). Similarly, the relationships between actors in policy
communities also vary. A policy network is a concept used to capture the relation-
ships that emerge between both individuals and organizations that are in frequent
contact with one another around issues of importance to the policy community
(Atkinson & Coleman, 1992; Coleman & Skogstad, 1990).
When one considers the decentralization and fragmentation inherent in the
field of criminal justice, it seems reasonable to question whether a distinct policy
community exists in Canada. We believe that such a community does exist,
although it must constantly work to manage the tensions that arise from these
characteristics; like the criminal justice system itself, it is a community that features
relationships of independent interdependence. At the federal level, for example, respon-
sibility for criminal justice is divided between two agencies—Public Safety Canada
and the Department of Justice Canada—each with separate leading roles in oper-
ational and legislative matters. While both possess independent mandates, their
day-to-day substantive concerns emphasize interdependence. A similar pattern
emerges in the context of intergovernmental relations.The division of powers over

543941_01_Prelims.indd 19 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xx INTRODUCTION

criminal matters in Canada has fostered the development of provincial policy


communities that are primarily concerned with the administration of justice
within provincial boundaries. However, the independent interdependence that
characterizes the relationship between federal agencies is duplicated at the inter-
governmental level, serving to bridge the gap between otherwise independent
policy communities. So just as the federal criminal justice policy community is
connected to provincial policy communities by virtue of the provincial power over
the administration of justice, provincial policy communities are linked to the wider
criminal justice policy community by virtue of the federal criminal law power.
Richard Simeon (1972) has pointed out that federalism is about the artful skill
of diplomacy. Diplomacy involves tact and patience, but most importantly it
involves communication. Thus, ‘there is much talk in official Canada, much con-
scious deliberation and reflection, and a clear articulation of policies’ (Rock, 1986,
p. 46). That talk is sometimes informal and sometimes structured. It is practised in
a number of federal-provincial arenas: in committees, task forces, working groups,
meetings of deputy ministers, and meetings of ministers (p. 45). While Canada’s
intra- and intergovernmental relations have been, and continue to be, generally pro-
ductive in criminal justice, disagreements can arise, as was the case with respect to
Quebec’s position on the Youth Criminal Justice Act (see the chapter by Barnhorst
in this volume for a more detailed discussion of these issues). There is little doubt
that federalism represents a source of complexity for the criminal justice policy
community, as it does for many other areas of public policy in Canada. However,
it is important to note that traits and experiences shared across jurisdictional and
geographic boundaries can also serve to unify federalism’s diverse elements. As we
will see, all criminal justice policy communities are encountering policy environ-
ments with increasingly diverse and rapidly maturing interest groups. All contain
sub-governments dominated by a hierarchy of professional interests. And all are
experiencing the pressures of an expanding attentive public (Ismaili, 2006, 2011).

The Sub-Government and the Attentive Public


As has been discussed, federalism implies that intergovernmental relations will
constitute a significant feature of any policy community in Canada. Many federal
and provincial officials are deeply involved in criminal justice policy; some are de
facto members of the sub-government. Those who play a central role include the
prime minister, the premiers, the minister of justice and attorney general of Can-
ada, the minister of public safety, and various provincial and territorial counter-
parts. Elected officials who serve on criminal justice legislative committees can
also be viewed as being important members of the sub-government, as, occasion-
ally, are mayors and members of city councils involved in pressing or high-profile
local criminal justice matters that resonate regionally or nationally. Finally, judi-
cial actors exert both a strong and a steady influence on the work of the sub-
government through their decisions on the application, review, and interpretation
of law. While not active participants in the work of the sub-government in a

543941_01_Prelims.indd 20 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xxi

conventional sense, they are nonetheless of central importance to the criminal


justice policy community.
Directly responsible for translating the political priorities of elected officials
into public policy, the public servants who head criminal justice government
departments and agencies are central participants in the policy community sub-
government. Also active in the initiation and screening of proposals for change in
criminal justice policy are bureaucrats at all levels of government who have no
operational responsibilities, but who concern themselves with monitoring policies
and advising elected officials (Solomon, 1991, p. 161). While government depart-
ments and individual bureaucrats (or policy-makers) are not part of the formal
criminal justice ‘system’, it is important to consider them in terms of their efforts
to reduce institutional fragmentation. The relationships that are struck between
government policy-making agencies and the various components of the justice
system are essential to its smooth functioning. Bureaucrats thus engage in a precar-
ious balancing act in the attempt to accommodate the diverse needs and demands
of the various ‘system’ components, along with those of politicians, interest groups,
and other interested members of the public.
A wide range of interest groups also populate the criminal justice policy com-
munity. Each group is committed to influencing the outcome of public policy,
although the degree to which it is ultimately successful is subject to considerable
variation. Stolz (2002) has identified eight distinct types of interest group that
attempt to influence criminal justice policy: professional, business, social welfare,
civic, ad hoc, victims, ex-offender, and offender-oriented interest groups mobilize
resources and press their respective positions at various decision points in the policy
process.The interest groups that have traditionally had the most influence on crim-
inal justice policy are those that represent professionals and other officials involved
in the operation of the criminal justice system—police associations, bar associa-
tions, judicial organizations, and correctional associations (Fairchild, 1981). As
active members of the policy community sub-government, these interest groups
represent professions with an institutionalized stake in the operation of the criminal
law and the criminal justice system (Fairchild, 1981). Their influence is enhanced
by the high degree of public deference accorded them, especially on policy matters
concerning the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system.

Policy Networks
When analyzing criminal justice policy, it is important to consider the relationships
that develop among the various actors in the policy community. Governments, for
example, can ill afford to develop policy that will be met with criticism from pro-
fessionals. Close ties with professional groups are cultivated to preclude such occur-
rences.Views are solicited and perspectives shared.The opinions of professionals are
considered vital, and their support essential (Pross, 1986, p. 98). Similarly, profes-
sional organizations seek to ensure that their positions on issues are represented at
various stages of the policy process. Their involvement goes a long way toward

543941_01_Prelims.indd 21 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xxii INTRODUCTION

ensuring that that objective is met. It is this close and privileged access to the policy
development process that often distinguishes the influence of professionally ori-
ented groups from other interests in the criminal justice policy community.
In cases where a crime or criminal justice issue is in the public spotlight,
elected officials are particularly responsive to public concerns and pay correspond-
ingly less attention to the views of policy professionals, including criminologists. It
is therefore inaccurate to state that non-professional interest groups are completely
shut out from the sub-government in the criminal justice policy community. The
views of a number of reform-oriented interest groups are considered vital and
essential to the policy process, particularly those with an established presence in
the policy community. Indeed, if there is one trend that has characterized the
policy community over the past three decades, it is the increasing number of
maturing interests that have developed around issues of criminal justice. Institu-
tionalized victims’ groups, groups working toward the elimination of violence
against women, and others focused on the needs of minorities are proliferating. All
are seeking to influence the shape and direction of public policy.
The attentive public in the criminal justice policy community is also expanding.
As Fairchild has noted, ‘Matters of criminal law go to the heart of questions about
governmental legitimacy, state authority, and other popular conceptions of right
and wrong, and are thus of closer concern to many individuals than are most other
legislative issues’ (1981, p. 189). This explains, in large part, the increase in the
number of ad hoc and single-issue reform interests that have recently been created
around various criminal justice issues. The attentive public obtains much of its
information about crime and the criminal justice system from the media. Because
the coverage of crime is so prominent in ‘all means of mass communications,
including daily and weekly newspapers, television, radio, news magazines, and so
on’ (Marion, 2002, p. 39), both the quantity and nature of media imagery can have
a significant influence on how crime is perceived and, ultimately, on which crim-
inal justice policies are pursued. Viewed in this light, the manner in which crime
and criminal justice issues are framed by the mainstream media becomes a signifi-
cant contextual feature of the policy community. As Marion has stated:

The media is important because it educates the public about crime. Unfortu-
nately, the media’s coverage of crime events does not reflect reality. The
media tend to cover crimes that occur less frequently such as mass shootings
and extremely violent offenses. Although they make for good media ratings,
these types of crimes are rare. In addition to misrepresenting the types of
crimes committed, television shows tend to depict stereotypes of criminals,
prisoners, and victims that are usually not accurate. (2002, p. 40)

Perceptions are, by their very nature, malleable. When perceptions relate to


crime, they are rarely grounded on sound, accurate information. What remains is
an apparent gulf between two related but independent domains: attitudes about

543941_01_Prelims.indd 22 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xxiii

crime and knowledge about crime (Roberts, 1994, p. 1). It is difficult to narrow
this gulf in a policy sector where political reaction to the public’s anxiety over
crime is commonplace. This is especially troubling because it is these very reac-
tions that often serve to reinforce and perpetuate the inaccurate perceptions held
by a large segment of the population.

Policy Challenges, Contemporary


and Long-Standing
A number of the chapters in this book point to the influence that the 11 Septem-
ber 2001 terrorist attack on the United States (and the subsequent attacks on
Spain and England) has had on Canada’s justice system. The impact has been dra-
matic, affecting the administration of justice, the nature of criminal justice policy,
and the relationship between the state and society. As will become clear as one
reads the various chapters in this book, the response to the threat of terrorism has
also redefined the manner in which migration, national security, organized crime,
and telecommunications are viewed in relation to crime and crime control. It may
well be that what we are now experiencing in Canada is a transformation in gov-
ernance similar to that which commentators argue has been underway in the
United States for a number of years. Described by Jonathon Simon as ‘governing
through crime’ (2007, p. 11), that transformation caused people to act against
crime and other troubling behaviours across a variety of institutional settings and
resulted in the migration of technologies, discourses, and metaphors of crime and
criminal justice into all kinds of institutions where they easily gravitated into new
opportunities for governance. Indeed, ‘[j]ust as we now see the war on terrorism
as requiring a fundamental recasting of American governance, the war on crime
has already wrought such a transformation—one which may now be re-­legitimized
as a ‘tough’ response to terrorism’ (p. 11). While Canada’s political culture is in
many ways distinct from that of the United States, our proximity to that nation,
our intertwined histories, and the ease with which policies travel in the contem-
porary world should lead us to think seriously about the diffusion of crime control
strategies (Jones & Newburn, 2002, 2007). But Canadians should not stop there.
We are influenced by and in turn influence the policy debates of many nations. This
too is deserving of in-depth study.
Policies are made in a variety of settings, ranging from the local to the global,
and involve a variety of actors, some more powerful than others. It is essential that
these processes, settings, and actors be viewed as central to the study of criminal
justice policy. And while it is critical that Canadians examine how policies are
made and who participates in the policy-making process, policy outcomes must
also be assessed in terms of their impact on society (Sheehy, 2004). A number of
chapters in this volume point to policies and practices in Canada that are deeply
troubling and that serve to control, criminalize, and punish those who are already
marginalized in society. Other chapters argue that the criminal justice system is

543941_01_Prelims.indd 23 4/16/12 1:56 PM


xxiv INTRODUCTION

ill-equipped to address complex social problems and social conditions. It is our


hope that this book will provide readers with an opportunity to learn about some
of the many challenges and dilemmas confronting the field of criminal justice in
Canada, and will stimulate a broader discussion about the goals and objectives of
policy and the capacity for criminal justice reform.

Critical Thinking Questions


1. What evidence can be presented to support the contention that Canadian
criminal justice policy has become politicized in recent years?
2. What makes crime a particularly potent symbol? What are the implications of
this for criminal justice policy?
3. Does the Canadian version of federalism help or hinder the development of
criminal justice policy?
4. Select a criminal justice issue and use the policy community framework to
highlight the actors and networks that will likely influence the policy-­
making process.
5. How does ideology manifest itself in Canadian criminal justice policy?

References
Atkinson, M., & Coleman, W. D. (1992). Clear, T. (2010). Policy and evidence: The
Policy networks, policy communities challenge to the American Society of
and problems of governance. Governance: Criminology. Criminology, 48(1), 1–25.
An International Journal of Policy and ———, & Frost, N. (2007). Informing public
Administration, 5, 155–80. policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 6(4),
Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay: Law and 633–40.
order in contemporary American politics. Colebatch, H. (1998). Policy. Buckingham,
New York: Oxford University Press. UK: Open University Press.
Canada. Constitutional Documents. Ottawa: Coleman, W. D., & Skogstad, G. (Eds.).
Department of Justice. Retrieved 7 June (1990). Policy communities and public policy
2011 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/ in Canada. Mississauga: Copp Clark
Const/ Pitman.
Chancer, L., & McLaughlin, E. (2007). Public Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality:
criminologies: Diverse perspectives on Arguments for a public criminology.
academia and policy. Theoretical Criminol- Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 175–90.
ogy, 11(2), 155–73. Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political
Christie, N. (1993). Crime control as industry: spectacle. Chicago: University of
Towards gulags,Western style? London: Chicago Press.
Routledge. Fairchild, E. S. (1981). Interest groups in the
———. (2004). A suitable amount of crime. criminal justice process. Journal of
London: Routledge. Criminal Justice, 9, 181–94.

543941_01_Prelims.indd 24 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Thinking about Criminal Justice Policy in Canada xxv

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime justice policy: A contemporary reader
and social order in contemporary society. (pp. 1–18). Sudbury, MA: Jones and
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bartlett Publishers.
Gest, T. (2001). Crime and politics: Big Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). Policy
govern­ment’s erratic campaign for law and convergence and crime control in the
order. New York: Oxford University Press. USA and UK: Streams of influence and
Griffiths, C. T., & Verdun-Jones, S. N. (1994). levels of impact. Criminal Justice, 2(2),
Canadian criminal justice. Toronto: 173–203.
Harcourt, Brace and Company. ———. (2005). Comparative criminal justice
Gusfield, J. (1963). Symbolic Crusade. Urbana: policy-making in the United States and
University of Illinois Press. the United Kingdom: The case of private
prisons. British Journal of Criminology,
Hagan, J. (1983). The symbolic politics of
45(1), 58–80.
criminal sanctions. In S. Nagel et al.
(Eds.), The political science of criminal justice ———. (2007). Policy transfer and criminal
(pp. 27–39). Illinois: Thomas Books. justice. Maidenhead, UK: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Haggerty, K. (2004). Displaced expertise:
Three constraints on the policy relevance Laub, J. H. (2004). The life course of
of criminological thought. Theoretical criminology in the United States.
Criminology, 8(2), 211–31. Criminology, 42(1), 1–26.
Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1984). The policy process Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for Policy
in the modern capitalist state. Sussex: Research. London: Sage Publications.
Harvestor Press. Marion, N. E. (2002). Criminal justice in
Hatt, K., Caputo, T., & Perry, B. (1992). America:The politics behind the system.
Criminal justice policy under Mulroney, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
1984–1990: Neo-conservatism, eh? Mears, D. P. (2007). Towards rational and
Canadian Public Policy, 18(3), 245–60. evidence-based crime policy. Journal of
Hawkesworth, M. E. (1988). Theoretical issues Criminal Justice, 35, 667–82.
in policy analysis. Albany: SUNY Press. Miller, W. B. (1973). Ideology and criminal
Hogg, P. (1985). Constitutional Law of Canada. justice policy: Some current issues.
Toronto: Carswell. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
64(2), 141–62.
Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy
analysis for the real world. New York: Nagel, S., et al. (1983). Introduction: General
Oxford University Press. relations between political science and
Hyshka, E. (2009). The saga continues: criminal justice. In S. Nagel et al. (Eds.),
Canadian attempts to reform cannabis The political science of criminal justice (pp.
law in the twenty-first century. Canadian ix–xii). Illinois: Thomas Books.
Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, ———. (1983). Introduction. In S. Nagel et
51(1), 73–91. al. (Eds.), The political science of criminal
Ismaili, K. (2006). Contextualizing the justice (pp. 5–13). Illinois: Thomas Books.
criminal justice policy-making process. Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2007). Symbolizing
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(3), crime control: Reflections on zero
255–69. tolerance. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2),
———. (2011). Thinking about criminal 221–43.
justice policy: Process, players, and Pross, A. P. (1986). Group politics and public
politics. In K. Ismaili (Ed.), U.S. criminal policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

543941_01_Prelims.indd 25 4/16/12 1:56 PM


Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
opus 102 pair, despite their indisputable profundities, are among
Beethoven’s more unapproachable and recondite works. Indeed, they
have about them a certain hard-shelled quality which scarcely lends
them an especially intimate or endearing effect.

String Quartets

The great series of string quartets begins with the six of opus 18,
published in 1801, and concludes, officially speaking, with the
masterpiece in F major, opus 135, completed only in 1826, but not
printed till something like half a year after his death. The half-dozen
works constituting the earlier opus had been ripening in the form of
sketches and experiments of one sort or another for several years.
They were finally issued in two numbers, each consisting of three
scores. It is not possible to determine precisely the order in which
they were written, but that fact is unimportant because the lot do not
exhibit any definite line of development. It seems that one version of
the first quartet, in F, was completed in 1799. Beethoven gave 48
it to his friend, the young ecclesiastical student Carl Amenda,
but asked him to show it to nobody because “I have altered it
considerably, having just learned to compose quartets aright.” Bekker
finds that the revision “tends to a freer, more soloistic treatment of
the accompanying parts, a clearer individualization of the cello part
and a greater tonal delicacy in the ensemble effects.... The main idea
of the composition, however, remained unchanged. This is no
disadvantage, for the fresh naiveté of the content and the
unassuming clarity of structure are great charms, and more would
have been lost than gained by overmeticulous revision. As the work
stands it is gratifying to the performer and offers pleasant, not over
difficult problems to the listener.”

The finest part of the work is undoubtedly the second movement, an


“Adagio affetuoso ed appassionato.” It is the richest in texture and
certainly the most poetic and emotional of the four. When the
composer played it to Amenda he is said to have inquired what the
music suggested to him. “It suggests a lover’s parting,” replied
Amenda; whereupon Beethoven replied, “Well, the tomb scene from
Romeo and Juliet was in my mind.” And Bekker insists that this
Adagio is “a most moving song of sorrow such as only Beethoven
could accomplish when he turned to the grave D minor key.”

The second quartet, in G major, has been christened in some German


countries the “Compliment Quartet.” It is graceful and rather courtly
but it reaches none of the depths of the more moving pages of the
preceding work, The Finale, however, is an instance of that
“unbuttoned humor” that Beethoven was to exhibit on later occasions
and of which he gave us supreme instances in the last movement of
the Seventh Symphony, the Eighth Symphony, and moments in 49
the last quartets, the “Diabelli Variations,” and several of the
final piano sonatas. Opus 18, No. 3, in D, is likewise marked by a
quality of gaiety, though hardly of the “unbuttoned” kind.

The fourth work of the opus 18 set, in C minor, is more or less a work
distinct from its companions. “A mood of deep seriousness is
common to it and the C major Quintet, opus 29,” believes Bekker,
“but the Quartet is full of passionate excitement,” and he alludes to
its “mournful earnestness ... and restless dissatisfaction, the very
opposite of the cheerful sense of concord with the world and
mankind expressed in the other five.” The Quartet in A major has
been termed Mozartean by some, operatic by others. Certainly it is
fluent and lilting music, of which the Minuet is in some respects the
most winning portion even if the final Allegro excels it in
expressiveness.

The B-flat Quartet, sixth of the series, is particularly significant for


the sombre adagio beginning of its otherwise jubilant allegretto
Finale. Beethoven has headed this introduction (which is recalled
dramatically during the movement) “La Malinconia: Questo pezzo si
deve trattare colla più gran delicatezza” (“Melancholy: this piece must
be played with the greatest delicacy”). This eerie and wholly romantic
movement is a true glimpse of the Beethoven into whose newer
world we shall presently penetrate.

With the three monumental quartets of opus 59 we have entered this


new sphere. They belong to the year 1806, which means that they
are of the epoch of the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies, the third
“Leonore” Overture, and the Violin Concerto and the G major 50
Concerto for piano. Beethoven dedicated them to the Russian
Count Rasoumovsky, whose name is thus imperishably linked with
these masterpieces; and it was perhaps as a compliment to this
nobleman that he introduced into the first and second of these works
authentic Russian themes. Indeed, the Scherzo of the E minor
Quartet utilizes that great melody around which, more than half a
century later, Moussorgsky was to build the coronation scene in his
opera Boris Godounov.

The “Rasoumovsky” trilogy exhibits Beethoven’s inventive and


technical faculties at the ideal symmetry they had achieved at the
flood tide of his so-called “Second” period. The F major, C major, and
E minor Quartets are in some ways the most ideally “balanced” ones
he ever wrote; and, with all their splendor of form and substance,
they are still replete with the most astonishing originalities and
departures. Indeed, the amazing “Allegretto, scherzando” movement
of the F major Quartet so astounded the players who first undertook
to perform it that they imagined Beethoven’s rhythmic motto theme
was intended as a joke at their expense and almost refused to go
through with it. The Adagio, on the other hand, develops, with the
utmost richness of sonority and color possible to four stringed
instruments, two gorgeously songlike themes till it seems as if they
had become expanded to orchestral dimensions. The E minor
Quartet, less a display piece than its companion works, is in a totally
different and quite as unprecedented manner, while its slow
movement (“Molto Adagio”) sounds a deep, spiritual note which
seems to have been inspired in the composer by a nocturnal
contemplation of a starry sky in the country around Baden, 51
near Vienna. As for the C major Quartet, the third of the
“Rasoumovsky” set, it closes in a jubilant, sweeping fugue, which is
like a paean of triumph.

There are two E-flat quartets in Beethoven’s output: the first, opus
74, is known as the “Harp” Quartet by reason of the numerous
passages of plucked strings in the first movement; the second is the
tremendous opus 127. The former is the dreamier, less challenging of
the two; it is rich not only in a sort of romanticism that looks forward
to the age of Schumann, but also in unexpected effects bearing the
unmistakable stamp of the Beethoven of the “Emperor” Concerto
period, though in its way it is rather less venturesome than the
“Rasoumovsky” trilogy. But the quartet that was written down in
1810—the F minor, opus 95—is in another category. It is the product
of a new period of emotional ferment and a disquiet pervades the
score with the irascible pertinacity of a gadfly. There is, indeed, a
new quality of storm and stress in this Quartetto Serioso, as the
composer himself designated it. Here he is in no mood for trifling. “At
the moment when Beethoven had fought out his battle, when he
could look back on all stages of the contest and taste the fruits of
victory, he became most intensely aware of what it had cost him,”
writes Paul Bekker, adding that “the autographed title shows that the
composer sought no happy solution of his problem”—in spite of
which the F minor Quartet does, surprisingly enough, end on a note
of laughter.

Beethoven did not busy himself with the composition of string


quartets for another fourteen years. This stretch of time is longer
than any other interval in the various series of his compositions. It
must be recalled, however, that in this space he wrote the last 52
three symphonies, the last half-dozen piano sonatas, the Missa
Solemnis, the definitive revision of Fidelio together with its new E
major overture, the Ferne Geliebte song cycle, the “Consecration of
the House” Overture, and a quantity of other works only less
significant. Spiritually, of course, he had traversed cycles of
experience and had become, in an intellectual and artistic sense,
another being.
It is almost inevitable, therefore, that the next great masterpiece of
chamber music, should lift the curtain on a new creative realm. The
E-flat Quartet, opus 127, has been properly likened to a majestic
portal opening on the grand landscape of the last four quartets—the
B-flat, opus 130; C-sharp minor, opus 131; A minor, opus 132; and
the relatively short F major, opus 135, which may be described as a
short of epilogue to the series.

There is nothing quite like these “last quartets” in Beethoven’s


myriad-faceted output. In its way the series may be said to transcend
even the Ninth Symphony, the “Hammerklavier” Sonata, and the
“Diabelli” Variations. The novelty, the explosive qualities, the far-
darting influence of these works (which span the nineteenth century
and might even be said to help leaven the musical art of our own
time) cannot be fully evaluated, let alone described, in this book.

It must suffice here to point out that the E-flat Quartet places the
listener at once in a world of unimagined wonders. The very opening
measures of the first movement with their powerful chords sound like
a heraldic annunciation. The second movement, (“Adagio ma non
troppo e molto cantabile”) is a series of variations of deepest
earnestness. It is as if the composer endeavored to bring to his
hearers revelations newly unfolded to his searching vision. The
“Scherzando vivace” that follows is wildly and even uncannily
humorous—and, incidentally, the longest of Beethoven’s scherzos.
The Finale is a sort of triumphal march in which “some adventurer
from the heavens seems to visit the earth ... with tidings of gladness,
to return to his home in the heavens once more.”
Portrait of Beethoven in later life.
Etching of Beethoven’s study.

The B-flat Quartet is, if anything, more unusual and amazing, 53


and it is in reality bound by a kind of mystical thematic kinship
with the A minor and the C-sharp minor Quartets which come next.
This kinship can be traced through the Great Fugue and is carried
through the following quartets with a variety of profound
philosophical modifications. The seven relatively brief movements of
the B-flat masterpiece culminate in the hyper-emotional Cavatina (of
which Beethoven said that remembrance of the feelings that inspired
him to compose it always stirred him to tears); and to this
sentimental outburst the harsh if stupendous fugue provided a truly
beneficent purgation. The later-written closing Allegro, if lively and
effervescent, is much less truly “in the picture.”

While it is risky, if not really impossible, to speak of the “greatest” of


the last quartets, more than one musician would vote for the
fourteenth—the tremendous one in C-sharp minor. The composition
has seven movements, extraordinarily diversified. Beethoven tried out
one of his little pleasantries on Schott, the publisher, and declared at
first the quartet was “pieced together out of sundry stolen odds and
ends.” A little later he reassured the frightened, unimaginative man of
business that it was really “brand new.” And subsequently he 54
said impulsively that he considered the C-sharp minor “my
best.” The introductory “Adagio non troppo” was called by Wagner
“the most sorrowful thing ever said in music.” All the same, the
mighty creation, after passing through unbelievable emotional
transformations, closes in a triumphal frenzy which Wagner likened to
“the dance of the whole world.”

The A minor Quartet, opus 132, doubtless begun somewhat earlier


than the two preceding, is scarcely less amazing. Its heart is the
“Molto Adagio” movement which Beethoven called “Song of
Thanksgiving in the Lydian mode offered to the Deity by a
convalescent.” It is filled with a mystical quality, a religious mood
explained by the circumstance that the composer wrote the
movement (one of his longest) when recovering from an illness. But
the still more amazing fact about this quartet is that some pages of it
were conceived for other works. It is a strange phenomenon that
Beethoven on several occasions designed a quantity of pages not
wholly sure where they would best fit, though in the end his artistic
intuitions invariably led him to discover the right place. Just as he
once intended the last movement of the “Kreutzer” Sonata for one of
the sonatas of the opus 30 set, so he at one time intended the “Alla
Marcia” that begins the finale of the A minor Quartet for the Ninth
Symphony. And the last quartets furnish other instances of the same
kind of thing.

The sixteenth quartet, last of the series, is rather different from the
philosophical quartets that immediately preceded it. It is, on the
whole, of lighter weight, though its brief “Lento assai” movement
touches hands with the ineffable Cavatina of the B-flat Quartet. It is
the shortest, though one of the most moving, of Beethoven’s 55
slow movements. The last movement opens with a three-note
motto under which the composer wrote the words “Must it be?” and
followed it with another three-note theme (Allegro) inscribed with the
words “It must be!” Explanations have been numerous and often far-
fetched. There is reason to believe that this formula and the musical
embodiments of this interrogation and answer must be construed in
the light of the master’s philosophy, with its cheerful acceptance of
the inevitable. It looks almost like a purposeful reversion to the mood
of “La malinconia” episode in the B-flat Quartet of opus 18.

56

COMPLETE LIST OF RECORDINGS


BY THE
PHILHARMONIC-SYMPHONY SOCIETY OF NEW YORK

COLUMBIA RECORDS

LP—Also available on Long Playing Microgroove Recordings as well as


on the conventional Columbia Masterworks.

Under the Direction of Bruno Walter

Barber—Symphony No. 1, Op. 9


Beethoven—Concerto for Violin, Cello, Piano and Orchestra in C major
(with J. Corigliano, L. Rose and W. Hendl)—LP
Beethoven—Concerto No. 5 in E-flat major (“Emperor”) (with Rudolf
Serkin, piano)—LP
Beethoven—Concerto in D major for Violin and Orchestra (with Joseph
Szigeti)—LP
Beethoven—Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21—LP
Beethoven—Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major (“Eroica”)—LP
Beethoven—Symphony No. 5 in C minor—LP
Beethoven—Symphony No. 8 in F major—LP
Beethoven—Symphony No. 9 in D minor (“Choral”) (with Elena
Nikolaidi, contralto, and Raoul Jobin, tenor)—LP
Brahms—Song of Destiny (with Westminster Choir)—LP
Dvorak—Slavonic Dance No. 1
Dvorak—Symphony No. 4 in G Major—LP
Mahler—Symphony No. 4 in G major (with Desi Halban, soprano)—LP
Mahler—Symphony No. 5 in C-sharp minor
Mendelssohn—Concerto in E minor (with Nathan Milstein, violin)—LP
Mendelssohn—Scherzo (from Midsummer Night’s Dream)
Mozart—Cosi fan Tutti—Overture
Mozart—Symphony No. 41 in C major (“Jupiter”), K. 551—LP
Schubert—Symphony No. 7 in C major—LP
Schumann, R.—Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major (“Rhenish”)—LP
Smetana—The Moldau (“Vltava”)—LP
Strauss, J.—Emperor Waltz

Under the direction of Leopold Stokowski

Copland—Billy the Kid (2 parts)


Griffes—“The White Peacock,” Op. 7, No. 1—LP 7″
Ippolitow—“In the Village” from Caucasian Sketches (W. Lincer and M.
Nazzi, soloists)
Khachaturian—“Masquerade Suite”—LP
Messian—“L’Ascension”—LP
Schoenberg—Stein-Lied Der Waldtaure sus Gurrelieder (Martha Lipton,
soloist)—LP
Sibelius—“Maiden with the Roses”—LP
Tschaikowsky—Francesca da Rimini, Op. 32—LP
Tschaikowsky—Overture Fantasy—Romeo and Juliet—LP
Vaughan-Williams—Greensleeves
Vaughan-Williams—Symphony No. 6 in E minor—LP 57
Wagner—Die Walküre—Wotan Farewell and Magic Fire Music
(Act III, Scene 3)
Wagner—Siegfried’s Rhine Journey and Siegfried’s Funeral March—
(“Die Götterdämmerung”)—LP
Wagner—Overture “Rienzi”

Under the Direction of Efrem Kurtz

Chopin—Les Sylphides—LP
Glinka—Mazurka—“Life of the Czar”—LP 7″
Grieg—Concerto in A minor for Piano and Orchestra, Op. 16 (with
Oscar Levant, piano)—LP
Herold—Zampa—Overture
Kabalevsky—“The Comedians,” Op. 26—LP
Khachaturian—Gayne—Ballet Suite No. 1—LP
Khachaturian—Gayne—Ballet Suite No. 2—LP
Lecoq—Mme. Angot Suite—LP
Prokofieff—March, Op. 99—LP
Rimsky-Korsakov—The Flight of the Bumble Bee—LP 7″
Shostakovich—Polka No. 3, “The Age of Gold”—LP 7″
Shostakovich—Symphony No. 9—LP
Shostakovich—Valse from “Les Monts D’Or”—LP
Villa-Lobos—Uirapuru—LP
Wieniawski—Concerto No, 2 in D minor for Violin and Orchestra, Op.
22 (with Isaac Stern, violin)—LP

Under the Direction of Charles Münch

D’Indy—Symphony on a French Mountain Air for Orchestra and Piano


—LP
Milhaud—Suite Française—LP
Mozart—Concerto No. 21 for Piano and Orchestra in C major—LP
Saint-Saens—Symphony in C minor, No. 3 for Orchestra, Organ and
Piano, Op. 78—LP

Under the Direction of Artur Rodzinski

Bizet—Carmen—Entr’acte (Prelude to Act III)


Bizet—Symphony in C major—LP
Brahms—Symphony No. 1 in C minor—LP
Brahms—Symphony No. 2 in D major—LP
Copland—A Lincoln Portrait (with Kenneth Spencer, Narrator)—LP
Enesco—Roumanian Rhapsody—A major, No. 1—LP
Gershwin—An American in Paris—LP
Gould—“Spirituals” for Orchestra—LP
Ibert—“Escales” (Port of Call)—LP
Liszt—Mephisto Waltz—LP
Moussorgsky—Gopack (The Fair at Sorotchinski)—LP
Moussorgsky-Ravel—Pictures at an Exhibition—LP
Prokofieff—Symphony No. 5—LP
Rachmaninoff—Concerto No. 2 in C minor for Piano and Orchestra
(with Gygory Sandor, piano)
Rachmaninoff—Symphony No. 2 in E minor
Saint-Saens—Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 4 in C minor (with
Robert Casadesus)—LP
Sibelius—Symphony No. 4 in A minor
Tschaikowsky—Nutcracker Suite—LP
Tschaikowsky—Suite “Mozartiana”—LP 58
Tschaikowsky—Symphony No. 6 in B minor (“Pathétique”)—LP
Wagner—Lohengrin—Bridal Chamber Scene (Act III—Scene 2)—(with
Helen Traubel, soprano, and Kurt Baum, tenor)—LP
Wagner—Lohengrin—Elsa’s Dream (Act I, Scene 2) (with Helen
Traubel, soprano)
Wagner—Siegfried Idyll—LP
Wagner—Tristan und Isolde—Excerpts (with Helen Traubel, soprano)
Wagner—Die Walküre—Act III (Complete) (with Helen Traubel,
soprano and Herbert Janssen, baritone)—LP
Wagner—Die Walküre—Duet (Act I, Scene 3) (with Helen Traubel,
soprano and Emery Darcy, tenor)—LP
Wolf-Ferrari—“Secret of Suzanne,” Overture

Under the Direction of Igor Stravinsky

Stravinsky—Firebird Suite—LP
Stravinsky—Fireworks (Feu d’Artifice)—LP
Stravinsky—Four Norwegian Moods
Stravinsky—Le Sacre du Printemps (The Consecration of the Spring)—
LP
Stravinsky—Scènes de Ballet—LP
Stravinsky—Suite from “Petrouchka”—LP
Stravinsky—Symphony in Three Movements—LP

Under the Direction of Sir Thomas Beecham

Mendelssohn—Symphony No. 4, in A major (“Italian”)


Sibelius—Melisande (from “Pelleas and Melisande”)
Sibelius—Symphony No. 7 in C major—LP
Tschaikowsky—Capriccio Italien

Under the Direction of John Barbirolli

Bach-Barbirolli—Sheep May Safely Graze (from the “Birthday


Cantata”)—LP
Berlioz—Roman Carnival Overture
Brahms—Symphony No. 2, in D major
Brahms—Academic Festival Overture—LP
Bruch—Concerto No. 1, in G minor (with Nathan Milstein, violin)—LP
Debussy—First Rhapsody for Clarinet (with Benny Goodman, clarinet)
Debussy—Petite Suite: Ballet
Mozart—Concerto in B-flat major (with Robert Casadesus, piano)
Mozart—Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183
Ravel—La Valse
Rimsky-Korsakov—Capriccio Espagnol
Sibelius—Symphony No. 1, in E minor
Sibelius—Symphony No. 2, in D major
Smetana—The Bartered Bride—Overture
Tschaikowsky—Theme and Variations (from Suite No. 3 in G)—LP

Under the Direction of Andre Kostelanetz

Gershwin—Concerto in F (with Oscar Levant)—LP

59
Under the Direction of Dimitri Mitropoulos

Gould—Philharmonic Waltzes (Zino Francescatti, violin)—LP


Khachaturian—Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (Oscar Levant, piano)
—LP
Rabaud—La Procession Nocturne (Zino Francescatti, violin)—LP
Saint-Saens—Dance Macabre (Robert, Gaby & Jean Casadesus,
pianists)—LP
Saint-Saens—Le Rouet d’Omphale (Zino Francescatti, violin)—LP
Saint-Saens—Violin Concerto, Op. 61 (Zino Francescatti, violin)—LP
Sessions—Symphony No. 2

Under the Direction of Leonard Bernstein

Bernstein—“Age of Anxiety”

Under the Direction of Morton Gould

Gould—“Quick Step”—LP
Under the Direction of Darius Milhaud

Milhaud—Suite Française—LP

Under the Direction of George Szell

Smetana—Bohemia’s Fields and Groves—LP


Smetana—Symphonic Poem, Vltava (The Moldau)—LP

VICTOR RECORDS

Under the Direction of Arturo Toscanini

Beethoven—Symphony No. 7 in A major


Brahms—Variations on a Theme by Haydn
Dukas—The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Gluck—Orfeo ed Euridice—Dance of the Spirits
Haydn—Symphony No. 4 in D major (The Clock)
Mendelssohn—Midsummer Night’s Dream—Scherzo
Mozart—Symphony in D major (K. 385)
Rossini—Barber of Seville—Overture
Rossini—Semiramide—Overture
Rossini—Italians in Algiers—Overture
Verdi—Traviata—Preludes to Acts I and II
Wagner—Excerpts—Lohengrin—Die Götterdämmerung—Siegfried Idyll

Under the Direction of John Barbirolli

Debussy—Iberia (Images, Set 3, No. 2)


Purcell—Suite for Strings with four Horns, two Flutes, English Horn
Respighi—Fountains of Rome
Respighi—Old Dances and Airs (Special recording for members of the
Philharmonic-Symphony League of New York)
Schubert—Symphony No. 4 in C minor (Tragic)
Schumann—Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D minor (with Yehudi
Menuhin, violin)
Tschaikowsky—Francesca da Rimini—Fantasia

60

Under the Direction of Willem Mengelberg

J. C. Bach—Arr. Stein—Sinfonia in B-flat major


J. S. Bach—Arr. Mahler—Air for G String (from Suite for Orchestra)
Beethoven—Egmont Overture
Handel—Alcina Suite
Mendelssohn—War March of the Priests (from Athalia)
Meyerbeer—Prophète—Coronation March
Saint-Saens—Rouet d’Omphale (Omphale’s Spinning Wheel)
Schelling—Victory Ball
Wagner—Flying Dutchman—Overture
Wagner—Siegfried—Forest Murmurs (Waldweben)
Transcriber’s Notes

A few palpable typos were silently corrected.


Illustrations were shifted to the nearest paragraph break.
Copyright notice is from the printed exemplar. (U.S. copyright
was not renewed: this ebook is in the public domain.)
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUDWIG VAN
BEETHOVEN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.


copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE


THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free


distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and


Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be


used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other


immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located
in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived


from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted


with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project


Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this


electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,


performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing


access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who


notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of


any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™


electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend


considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for


the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you


discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied


warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,


the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission


of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the


assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project


Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,


Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to


the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating


charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where


we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make


any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About


Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,


including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about testbank and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebooksecure.com

You might also like