Fifty years ago we saw the first steps towards developing a preventive approach towards tackling torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the mid-1970s Jean-Jacques Gautier, a retired Swiss banker, became interested in the predicament of political prisoners and, within a fairly brief period of time (until his death in 1986), managed to build an international coalition in support of his idea of establishing and introducing an international monitoring mechanism, that would enable a group of experts to visit places of detention in different parts of the world. As a result the European Committee of the Prevention of Torture (CPT) (operational since 1989), the UN Subcommittee of the Prevention of Torture (SPT) (operational since 2007), and so-called National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) came to be established. In line with the central theme of this year’s conference the paper will, first, assess what has been achieved over the past 50 years in terms of torture prevention and, second, explore what role criminologists play - and can/should play - within the broader field of (the study of) torture prevention, both as consumers (that is, as readers, users, disseminators, researchers who have access to the observations and recommendations of such monitoring bodies) as well as producers (that is, as members/contributors to monitoring activities). The paper will offer a number of reflections on Malcolm Evans’ recent book Tackling Torture (Bristol University Press, 2023) and will draw upon our own research on – and involvement in - monitoring prisons and European penology.

Carrying out research that leads to ‘real life’ change is often seen as the ultimate goal for researchers. However, in reality, and certainly for prison researchers, engagement with state organisations that we may ordinarily view as harmful in nature, becomes an uncomfortable necessity if such change is to be achieved. In this paper, we reflect openly and critically on our own experiences of working alongside one such state institution to improve the lives of d/Deaf prisoners.

In doing so, we reflect on the trade-offs involved between, on the one hand bringing about changes that might be understood to reinforce the legitimacy of harmful practices and institutions, and on the other hand risking never improving the lives of this vulnerable population through not engaging with such institutions. In doing so, we reflect on whether it is possible to hold abolitionist ideals whilst working alongside potentially harmful institutions of the state.

The language of trauma has undergone a cultural moment in society—from Felliti’s adverse childhood experiences to the popularisation of The Body Keeps Score—and is now a primary lens for people to interpret their formative and ongoing experiences, where trauma is ubiquituous and nearly all are affected.

This is strikingly evident in the development of so called "trauma-informed prisons," especially for women, which assume trauma as the key hermeneutic through which to consider those incarcerated, irrespective of clinical diagnosis. While many analyses of trauma-informed practice exist—Carlton and Russell’s (2023) critique from abolitionist feminism; Smith, Monteux and Cameron’s (2021) diagnosis of underlying ideologies; and Vaswani and Paul’s (2019) eluicidation of implementation gaps— this paper, drawing on Irish prison policy and practice, will argue that, while the scientific usefulness of trauma theory is still debated, trauma theory has political utility for penal expansionism.

The central aim of trauma-informed prisons is not to create a new lingua franca between prison staff and prisoners to ameliorate trauma; rather the formation of a shared language between an expansionist prison project and Irish civil society, like the appropriation of human rights language before. With many of the middle- and upper-class already conversant in trauma language, its utilisation can appeal to voters both on the political left and right. It is not coincidental that trauma-informed prisons have emerged under Ministers of Justice from the traditional law-and-order party in Ireland.

Drawing on victimology scholarship and Ivan Illich’s Medical Nemesis, this paper will interrogate the moral implications of understanding both victims and female offenders through trauma theory, yet the latter receive state-inflicted punishment. What impact will “therapeutically imagined elements” (Daems, 2010) have on the future of penal reform? In conclusion, it will reflect upon absent voices, as ubiquitous class-based language may not account for how those incarcerated understand their experiences.

The US punishes violent crime more harshly than other affluent nations, driving mass incarceration and doing little to curb the country’s high rates of violence. Against this punitive culture in policy and practice, Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) provide U.S. military veterans with rehabilitation-focused supervision instead of incarceration. In the state of Minnesota, the legal incentives for participating in these courts are particularly significant, including the ability to graduate the court without a criminal record--- even for serious (in the U.S., felony-level) domestic violence offenses. This paper asks how this resource-intensive and less punitive court was legitimated in a state that takes a particularly punitive approach to domestic violence. To do so, I examine the legislative campaign and debate surrounding the Veterans Restorative Justice Act, a piece of legislation that cemented the VTC sentencing structure as statewide law. I argue that VRJA advocates activated a network of expertise about the nature of veteran trauma to suture in critical legislative partners: the Veterans Administration (a federal healthcare institution for veterans) and the local domestic violence coalition. Serving as different nodes within the network, these partners were able to allay concerns about the financial burden of the courts and undermine political charges that the bill was too weak on domestic violence. This paper draws on insights from Science and Technology studies to underline and analyze the importance of expertise in contemporary CJ reform.