000			02054nab a2200241Ia 4500
001			116632
005			20250625151153.0
008			110331s2004 eng
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aNewbold, Greg _91803
245			_aA reply to Buckingham's "newsmaking" criminology or "infotainment" criminology? : _binaccuracy, distortion and feminist doctrine _cNewbold, Greg
260			_c2004 _aBowen Hills, Qld.: _bAustralian Academic Press,
365			_a00 _b0
490	0		_aAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
500			_aAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2004, 37(2): 276-285
520			_aThis article presents Greg Newbold's response to an article by Judith Buckingham in the same edition of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Buckingham criticises Newbold for erroneously depicting women in relation to gender symmetry in DV and women in the criminal justice system more generally, and, through his work, the PhD thesis of a former student, Samantha Jeffries. In his response to Buckingham's article, Newbold argues that Buckingham's views are not supported by evidence, and that she has misunderstood Jeffries' thesis, and misconstrued and misrepresented Newbold's book Crime in New Zealand in relation to women's role in domestic violence. He notes his book deals specifically with judicial inequalities in relation to gender in just four of the 279 pages. Refutations of Buckingham's criticisms of the book are discussed extensively in the article. Newbold also states that Jeffries' doctoral research (which found that, holding relevant sentencing factors constant, there are significant gender differences in sentencing) was affirmed by the two internationally eminent feminist criminologists who examined it.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aWOMEN _9645
651	2	4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2004, 37(2): 276-285
856			_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1375/acri.37.2.276
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE
999			_c2120 _d2120