I have wanted to be a criminal barrister since I was 19. The ability to provide a voice for somebody who would otherwise have none has appealed to me since childhood and I will continue the quest for pupillage until I have obtained it! The desire to be an advocate is innate for me, but it was not until I studied Criminology and Sociology at university that I realised how I wanted to channel it.
Sociology is first and foremost the study of people, human behaviour and the intricate power structures which permeate the social world. It is an essential discipline which for me has acted as a foundation from which law can be understood. It is for this reason that I am perplexed at the lack of kinship between the two disciplines. Above all, practitioners and academics in both fields are striving toward a common ideal: social justice. Why then, have I experienced confusion and cynicism when I speak passionately about one field to a member of the other? There is a certain lack of understanding between sociologists and lawyers which needs to be addressed in order to cohesively work toward the common goal of social justice.
There are many common themes which pervade sociological discourse and that criminal practitioners work with daily: class, gender and race to name but a few. It is impossible to work effectively and justly in a legal sphere without a true understanding of these concepts and how they might impact individuals who find themselves before the might of the state in criminal proceedings. For this reason, I am an advocate for the utilisation of social theory in law. It is not a coincidence that:
- There is an over representation of BAME individuals in prison at making up around 26% of the prison population in the UK (Prison Reform Trust 2020).
- Men make up 97% of those incarcerated (Prison Population Figures 2020).
- There are three and a half times as many ‘criminals’ living in the 20% most deprived areas as in the 20% least deprived areas, meaning that those living in poverty are far more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime (Cuthbertson, 2018).
We cannot operate an equitable justice system without a thorough understanding and review of its social make up. Fundamentally, legal practitioners need social scientists to research and explain these social phenomena.
Although many sociologists decry structural/ traditionalist approaches to crime and punishment, this is simply not going to happen in 21st century Britain. To claim the law is a mere mechanism for oppression and social control is reductive and impractical. In doing so, we risk impeding the progress that has been made for a fairer, more equitable justice system and ignore the positive improvements that have been made. Theory and research are an invaluable tool in this pursuit, but it is through law and social policy combined that we can ease the class/gender/ racial inequalities which are still so apparent in the justice system.
Criminological discourse and feminist theory aid us in understanding secondary victimisation for vulnerable witnesses categorised under s.16 YJCEA 1999. A recent development which has stemmed from such research has been the prohibition of sexual history evidence in rape trials through the implementation of s. 41 YJCEA 1999, the introduction of victim statements, and special measures for vulnerable witnesses. Although more developments need to be made, this is an example of how the two disciplines should work cohesively to bring about social justice, through the implementation of legislation. The legislation would not have happened without the research, and the research would not have achieved the end result without the law. (This is not to say the current system for vulnerable witnesses is perfect- far from it- LLM dissertation pending!)
For the reasons above I am disappointed at the attitudes toward social sciences by lawyers and frustrated at the attitudes of sociologists regarding lawyers.
When I was studying for my GDL and applying for scholarships, a well-meaning member of staff warned me that in my application I tended to “sound like a sociologist yearning for a new home” and that “barristers won’t like that.” Equally I had a near perfect stranger (before an interview no less) state that it was a “shame” that my First-class degree was in Criminology/ Sociology because “everyone thinks it is a fluffy subject.” I was disheartened by these interactions because I am proud of my degree and I know it will aid me in my future career at the bar due to its emphasis on understanding people and the societies in which they are operate. People and their behaviours cannot be extracted from their environments and the law must take heed of that.
I have also had peers within social science contexts play into the trope of the dishonest lawyer and suggest that law is a convenient career path because it is “lucrative.” This stings. Ask any bar student which module is the most rigorous and they will invariably say it is the ethics module. Professional ethics are at the heart of the profession, and a barrister’s integrity is their everything.
As for the financial stereotypes, criminal barristers are chronically exploited by the government and legal aid expenditure has dropped by 40% since 1997. The stereotype of the money driven lawyer is fundamentally unfounded when applied to criminal lawyers, and hugely damaging to public perception of the profession. The legal aid crisis is on-going and it is wreaking havoc for defendants, victims and practitioners. Criminal barristers commit to the field in the interests of people and social justice, certainly not to make their millions. In this way sociologists and criminal barristers are allied, and this should be recognised among both parties.
It seems fairly evident that the relationship between social sciences and law is a working progress and that much liaising between practitioners of the respective fields must be attempted in order to cohesively work toward a common good. Improvements are definitely being made and I am thrilled to see an emergence of literature written by inspirations of mine which fuse these two essential professions.
Comments