ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we begin our discussion by returning to the introduction of special issue of Theoretical Criminology that we co-edited in May 2007 entitled, “Public Criminologies: Diverse Perspectives on Academia and Policy.” We then consider some of the key public criminology discussions and debates that have subsequently taken place, including the reaction to the position put forward by Ian Loader and Richard Sparks. The discipline continues to remain split between those who hold fatalistic (or, what they would call, realistic) views and those who hold positive views on the value of pursuing public criminology. We argue that much has changed since 2007, which makes public criminology more important than ever but more difficult to “do.” This is because of the treacherous digital media landscape that has unfolded since the publication of the special issue. Criminologists have been slow to analyze the game-changing ramifications of this disruptive post-factual world for their work, and particularly the challenges that this poses in different ways when emanating both from the left and the right. We conclude by flagging the importance of popular criminological engagement and what we can learn from other academic disciplines. In addition, we argue that criminological theorizing must be upgraded to make sense of the “crime shocks” currently confronting us.
