Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | C | Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Neither safe nor sound? The perils and possibilities of risk.

Article Excerpt
Introduction

"Risk is the new black," or so one reviewer wryly observed on the publication of yet another volume on the subject of risk (Ditton 2002: 219). Its modishness and ubiquity arises not least because its meaning varies according to its context and deployment. Yet its multiple meanings ought also to make us wary about so capacious a concept. Reflecting upon the genealogy of risk furnishes a further ground for caution. Its origins in statistics, engineering, and, later, environmental science raise questions about the applicability of its logic and techniques to arenas in which the risks can rarely be calculated with the certainty of the natural sciences. Mathematical concepts of risk and probability applicable to engineering, atomic energy, or the health effects of carcinogens cannot safely be applied to the altogether more diffuse and non-quantifiable "facts" that pertain in the prevention of crime or terrorism. Whereas the risk of earthquake or pathology does not increase or alter if one takes defensive measures against it, security against human threats must foresee and forestall the potential of adversaries to outwit measures against them (Garland 2003: 53-54). Human risks are necessarily reactive and call for reflexive security strategies.

What follows is a critical examination of risk-based approaches to security threats. It suggests some ways of distinguishing between different genres of risk and questions whether the distinction between risk assessment and risk management in the security field can safely be drawn. Given the difficulties posed by placing risk at the top of the policy agenda, the article explores some alternative intellectual resources with which to play the risk game. Drawing on behavioural economics, international relations, environmental law, and political science, it offers some intriguing insights worthy of criminological attention.

From rule-based to risk-based approaches

One of the most striking recent developments is the widespread policy shift from rule-based to risk-based approaches to security (Feeley and Simon 1994). Risk assessment is now advanced as a central tool in the management of crime and terrorism (Ericson and Haggerty 1997; Stenson and Sullivan 2001). Whether a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the two approaches is, however, open to question (Sparks 2000). Risk-based approaches can be and commonly are articulated through legal rules. Indeed, rule making is central to delineating risk-based systems, the criteria upon which decisions can legitimately be made, risk factors that may or may not be taken into account, and the procedures that follow. Historically, the courts have determined what role risk assessment should play in diverse fields, including industrial production, environmental health, and drug administration, as well as with respect to dangerous offenders and terrorist threats. The courts have set standards for risk assessment and determined the level of risk that must obtain if regulations are to withstand judicial review (Fisher 2005). It follows that although risk may be presented as a matter of scientific analysis and radical departure from rule-based systems, it has historically been a product of legal definition and judgement.

Yet the danger remains that where risk comes to prevail as the main driver of policy, adherence to legalism will be forgone. Establishing regulatory frameworks within which to pursue risk-based approaches is essential if the logic of risk reduction is not to permit ever more intrusive and liberty-eroding incursions. To the extent that risk-based measures threaten individual liberty, it is all the more important that they be bound by legal strictures enshrining basic values such as...