This book arises from the experiences of the authors as practitioners in the probation service and then teachers of criminology on vocational programmes for criminal justice practitioners, including probation and police students, within higher education. In teaching core modules on diversity and criminal justice it was apparent to us that there was a dearth of literature and research on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) peopleâas victims, offenders and staffâwithin the system. We believed that all modules on vocational programmes for criminal justice students should make reference to the experiences of a wide range of offender groups, in order to ensure that these students, many of whom would become practitioners, would have the knowledge, skills and awareness to deal with these offenders fairly and in accordance with both the law and the expectations of good practice. As teachers we found that there was a wide range of material available to us on issues of âraceâ and gender and criminal justice. We were able to benefit from research evidence, statistical evidence gathered as a requirement of Section 95 of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, and theoretical insights into the implications of practice with women and people from black and minority ethnic communities, who were different from, and had different needs from, the perceived norm of an offender population comprised largely of young, white, heterosexual males. However, when we considered the experiences of other minority groups within the system, including people with disabilities and those from LGBT communities, we found that there was a great deal less knowledge and information available to us. Even a cursory look at the indexes of most of the core criminological texts available to us, as teachers, demonstrated the evidence of âraceâ and gender as a subject of interest; but with very few exceptions there was minimal reference to LGBT people as offenders, victims or staff.
On one level, this âsilenceâ or invisibility in the literature is understandable. For years LGBT people have been criminalised and stigmatised simply for being who they are. This fact alone has caused them to be cautious and secretive about their identity in dealings with the criminal justice system (CJS), when the likelihood existed of them being further criminalised.1 The stigma of being gay, until very recently, was also enough to keep people silent and to ensure that no one spoke out about any perceived injustices they might experience in public service delivery. Despite our relative status as professionals and academics in the system, we too had sometimes found ourselves silenced in discussions about diversity: both overtly, by the stronger, evidenced-based arguments on discrimination in relation to âraceâ and gender, and also because of our own and othersâ inhibitions about raising a subject felt to be, at its best, âsensitiveâ or indeed âembarrassingâ. Otherwise supportive colleagues might assume that sexual orientation was a private matter and best ignored. All of this rather awkward shuffling of assumptions about what could or could not be talked about, and what was or was not in the public domain, added to the overall lack of information sharing, research interest and knowledge.
In this context it is important to understand how LGBT people are still classified and viewed as âotherâ or lacking in legitimacy in Western society. Not only have LGBT individuals had to struggle against criminalisation of their behaviour, and medical constructs of their sexuality that view it as pathological, abnormal and unnatural, they have also had to challenge the institutions of heterosexuality, marriage, religion and family which have viewed them as âsinfulâ or âmorally wrongâ and have relentlessly oppressed them (Seidler, 2010).
Teaching diversity issues to students is always challenging, not least because it requires the teacher to be in touch with his or her own feelings around issues of difference and to be able to handle a range of emotions and beliefs that are likely to be generated or expounded within the student group when these subjects are raised. In the case of LGBT studies in criminal justice and criminology this challenge is compounded by a lack of evidence-based research. The easy option is to provide students with a few facts and some statistical information and concentrate on diversity as something to be celebrated and enjoyed, rather than something deeply associated with power and discrimination, and that can challenge many closely held convictions and beliefs. Criminal justice agencies are required to produce policy and strategy demonstrating how they are tackling diversity within their organisation, and statistics and targets can be harnessed to service this machine. They are not required to demonstrate or monitor how they are managing the emotional capacity of their staff to understand and engage fully with diversity (Knight, 2014). They are also not currently required to identify statistical evidence concerning the experiences of LGBT communities as offenders and staff members, although issues of hate crime have risen to the surface in recent years, with monitoring now being undertaken in this area.
As teachers endeavouring to share with students our own experiences of working with diversity, and our own personal journeys in understanding and knowledge, we have had to think creatively when it comes to teaching on LGBT issues. We have made some reference to our own experiencesâbut too much personal revelation can be exhausting and leave the teacher vulnerable and at risk of losing the objectivity that all teachers need when helping and enabling others to learn. âComing outâ to successive student groups can be helpful in terms of establishing an identity otherwise assumed to be heterosexual, and in offering opportunities for LGBT students to seek us out and potentially gain some confidence in talking about their own experiences. However, it does not necessarily move the student group as a whole to extend their knowledge and awareness. In some instances it can lead to fierce debates about the ârightsâ of students with deeply held religious beliefs that incorporate homophobia to decline to open up these beliefs to challenge. The 2010 Equality Act has, in many respects, allowed for a more open challenge of this stance, as LGBT people are now identified as having a âprotected characteristicâ under this Act. However, whilst this legislation might assert the legal protection, it does not necessarily tackle underlying beliefs, which merely go underground, with the risk of resurfacing elsewhere, particularly during practice with vulnerable service users.
More recently the vocational teaching curricula, particularly for probation and police students, has become so densely packed with required knowledge, competencies and skills training that this sort of âawarenessâ raising has been increasingly squeezed to the margins of teaching time. Students are left to make what they can of the research and theoretical understandings of diversity, with LGBT and disability issues the poor relations in terms of evidence-based research and knowledge.
We have endeavoured to make this book relevant to practice across the UK and wherever possible we have included legislation, policy and recent practice developments in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in particular to highlight some of the differences between the countries. A recent welcome addition to the literature is the American Handbook of LGBT Communities, Crime and Justice by (Peterson & Panfil, 2014), and we have made reference to it here, bearing in mind the differences from UK practice. From this and other more general literature, we have tried to plug some of the gaps that we have identified in the UK literature by pulling together a range of surveys, articles and research on LGBT people from across a wide spectrum of disciplines and making connections with criminal justice issues. We hope it may provide something of a tool kit for teachers, students and practitioners who want to learn, and who need information to raise the issues and challenge poor practice, in both themselves and others. We had hoped it would not be a ânegativeâ book that focused only on the problems and difficulties faced by LGBT people, although sadly much of the material we have found is indeed negative and sometimes shocking. Too often LGBT issues have been concealed, despite the traumas suffered. Many LGBT people remain âin the closetâ, at considerable personal expense to themselves, because their fear of exposure and the consequences of being âoutâ in a hostile environment have been overwhelming. The history of the treatment of gay men, in particular, through the CJS is an indictment of our society. Whilst the legislation has now changed, people have long memories, and the fear and humiliation felt by many gay men at a time when criminalisation and persecution was rife remains in the psyche of all LGBT communities.
However, this is not the whole story. Being LGBT opens up an array of opportunities and experiences for crossing boundaries and challenging stereotypes that can be extremely liberating. Many LGBT people have been at the forefront of change and development in a range of social policy and social justice issues; having stepped over one seemingly insurmountable âboundaryâ they have the emotional and intellectual resources to take on others. We would like this book to be a celebration of these differences as much as, if not more than, a treatise on how to deal with the continuing problems caused by homophobia in UK society. We are very clear that the problem is homophobia and heterosexism, not LGBT people and communities themselves. However, the negativity continues to need to be addressed. Young LGBT people are still bullied at school, they are more likely to suffer with mental health issues and to be suicidal. Many LGBT people are still too afraid to be themselves in their families, work places, as service users and particularly in relation to their health needs (Fish & Karban, 2015), and many fail to receive an adequate or appropriate service from CJS agencies.
In this book we aim to summarise the factual information we have been able to glean from the existing literature across wider disciplines than just criminal justice. We use some case studies, taken from the literature and also generously provided for us by LGBT people who have experienced the CJS as victims, offenders or staff members and have been willing to share these experiences. In the absence of monitoring and statistical evidence we hope that these case studies will bring some light to the issues that can arise. We also, in Chap. 10, offer some examples and models of good practice, many of which require students and practitioners to step out of their normal âsilenceâ on the issues and take the risk of getting it âwrongâ, though ultimately engaging in a real way with the lived experiences of their LGBT colleagues and service users.
Chapter 2 identifies and draws out some of the terminology and language used to define LGBT issues in what is a rapidly emerging and developing field. A significant part of this chapter is a glossary of the terms that are used both to understand and to articulate the core concepts and complexities that can be found in any study of LGBT communities. These are not offered as definitive answers to problems of definition, but rather as a starting point for debate. We recognise that people in minority and oppressed communities create their own language to define themselves and we may not always get this right. As a student or practitioner lacking knowledge in this area, there is no clear rulebook to follow. It is recommended that current opinions are sought and updated from local LGBT groups and activists about preferred terminology, so as to gain an overview, and then to take care with individual service users to ensure that they feel this language is acceptable and appropriate to them. An example of this might be the word âqueerâ, which is commonly used to describe academic studies in this area, and is a term of definition used by some LGBT individuals to describe themselves. However, it would not be appropriate for a heterosexual person to use this term to define an LGBT individual, as this would convey a negative stereotype.
Chapter 3 sets out the history of the early legislation in relation to the criminalisation of sex between men and traces the gradual liberalisation of this legislative framework concerning LGBT rights. We also consider changing social attitudes and the experiences of LGBT people in this country, and the movement towards equality and full integration. We identify the most recent equality legislation, including the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, and examine some of the implications of this for LGBT individuals and communities.
Chapter 4 describes the experiences of LGBT people as victims of crime. Whilst the temptation is to jump straight to the emerging field of hate crime, and indeed there is considerable evidence emerging of both knowledge and good practice in this area, it is important to recognise that LGBT people can also be victims of other sorts of crime, and their identity as LGBT people may or may not be an issue in this. The failure, as a practitioner in the system, even to consider the identity of the victim may well mean that significant information about the impact of the crime on that person is missed. Some of the available research evidence highlights the impact of hate crime in particular on the lives of the victims, their families and their communities that can often be far reaching.
In Chap. 5 we present what little we have been able to find out about LGBT people as offenders in the UK, and we also draw on some of the US literature to help us here. There is no official monitoring or statistical evidence of crimes committed by LGBT individuals in the UK at the present time, for both obvious and less obvious reasons, and this is explored in more detail elsewhere in the book. The obvious reasons are that many LGBT people are still very fearful of experiencing prejudice and discrimination when they access services, particularly those of the police and prison service, and their lack of trust in the system means they are unlikely to want to declare their sexual orientation unless compelled to by the circumstances. Therefore, obtaining quantitative evidence of prejudice or discrimination within a criminal justice context is highly problematic. Gaining access to LGBT communities for research in this area can also be very difficult (Seidler, 2010). Sadly the same is still true for many staff in the CJS who, despite the massive strides in equality legislation, continue to feel the need to hide their identity, sometimes for unspecified fearful reasons. The less obvious reasons for lack of disclosure are the reluctance of both agencies and individuals to, as they sometimes see it, âpryâ into the private lives of individuals. This reluctance is based on a belief that sexual orientation is a private matter and should not be open to public scrutiny. This stance confuses issues of sexual orientation with sexual practice, which is generally a private matter for most individuals. It also reinforces the heteronormative nature of society. There is a continuing reluctance in both the practice and the academic field to talk openly about sexuality and sexual orientation. We have endeavoured, in this chapter, to reflect on some of the criminogenic factors that may be associated with being LGBT. Not so much that being gay causes people to offendâthere is clearly no direct correlation between the twoâbut that vulnerability and stress factors related to hiding their sexual orientation, or experiencing rejection or humiliation and the resultant mental health difficulties, can lead people to have the potential to become caught up in offending.
Chapter 6 explores issues related to staffing in CJS agencies. As will be discussed, the criminal justice system in the UK is still predominantly a gendered business, with men constituting the largest offender groupings, and also dominating the working cultures of the legislature, the judiciary, the police and the prison services. Issues of hegemonic masculinity and ideas of âtoughnessâ are explored and the implications for LGBT individuals who may challenge some of these notions. We examine the experiences, views and practices of both LGBT and heterosexual staff within the core agencies of the CJS and how some attitudes and practices towards LGBT individuals and communities have changed in recent years. There is evidence to suggest that employees in some agencies may still...