Showing papers in "Punishment & Society in 2002"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors claim that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice, and use indigenous justice practices and was the first step towards restoring justice in the United States.
Abstract: Advocates’ claims about restorative justice contain four myths: (1) restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice; (2) restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was the...
377 citations
TL;DR: It is increasingly recognized that factors beyond the nation state are influencing and shaping domestic crime control policies as discussed by the authors, and much discussion takes place under the general rubric of "globalizatio...
Abstract: It is increasingly recognized that factors beyond the nation state are influencing and shaping domestic crime control policies. Much discussion takes place under the general rubric of ‘globalizatio...
177 citations
TL;DR: As an exemplar of modern penality's "normalizing sector" (Garland, 1985), probation is deeply implicated in the purported shift towards a new or post-modern penal rationality with risk managemen.
Abstract: As an exemplar of modern penality’s ‘normalizing sector’ (Garland, 1985), probation is deeply implicated in the purported shift towards a ‘new’ or ‘postmodern’ penal rationality with risk managemen...
116 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that privatization of corrections is problematic in large part because advocates claim that private contractors can provide the same or better services at less cost than public agencies.
Abstract: Privatization of corrections is problematic in large part because advocates claim that private contractors can provide the same or better services at less cost than public agencies. This article ar...
81 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the use of shaming and stigma against financial criminals and evidence for and against their impact and suggest that potential damage to business prospects is probably more salient than shame per se to impact of informal sanctions, but that culture is an important component of the process of shaming.
Abstract: This article examines the use of shaming and stigma against financial criminals and evidence for and against their impact. It first reviews the extent to which fraudulent behaviour attracts shaming responses - which depends partly on the nature of the frauds committed - and then the extent to which fraudsters are likely to care about the shame that is sought to be imposed upon them. It suggests that potential damage to business prospects is probably more salient than shame per se to impact of informal sanctions, but that culture is an important component of the process of shaming, and that further research is needed before we can be confident about the effectiveness of shame in this area, quite apart from the difficulties of applying it in practice.
51 citations
48 citations
44 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors take as its starting point a public punitiveness that is novel in its lack of sympathy for and stridency against offenders and suggest that this punitiveness can be partly explained by the ascent of consumerism as an axial principle of life.
Abstract: This article takes as its starting point a public punitiveness that is novel in its lack of sympathy for and stridency against offenders. It is suggested that this punitiveness can be partly explained by the ascent of consumerism as an axial principle of life today. The ideas of Rene Girard are used to elaborate upon this suggestion. Girard argues that dis- putes emerge within cultures when there are no public prohibitions on consumption. Desires converge on the same objects, producing conflicts that can only be resolved by a scapegoating mechanism. Although markets have always threatened to deregulate desires, there have usually been countervailing movements. The novelty of the consumer society is that while few goods are prescribed by custom, they no longer possess stable values. This exacerbates the anxiety predicted by Girard and scapegoating becomes more intensive in an effort to ground the value of objects of desire.
39 citations
TL;DR: In particular, the relationship between capital punishment and variously situated social actors has been explored in this paper, where the authors argue that capital punishment plays a contradictory, emotional role in American social and political culture.
Abstract: Capital punishment plays a contradictory, emotional role in American social and political culture. In particular, the relationship between this punishment and variously situated social actors sugge...
36 citations
TL;DR: HMP Dovegate, which opened in 2001, is one of the latest in what is fast becoming a long line of privately managed prisons as mentioned in this paper. But Dovegate is no ordinary prison: within its walls it accommodates a large number of prisoners.
Abstract: HMP Dovegate, which opened in 2001, is one of the latest in what is fast becoming a long line of privately managed prisons. But Dovegate is no ordinary prison: within its walls it accommodates a th...
36 citations
TL;DR: The role of the private sector in the administration of punishment was discussed in this article, but this debate focused nearly exclusively on for profit corporations, excluding the role that non-profits played.
Abstract: While a lively debate rages over the role of the private sector in the administration of punishment, this debate focuses nearly exclusively on for profit corporations, excluding the role that nonpr...
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the quality of operations at private and public prisons, and make informed decisions about the desirability of using private or public prisons in the future.
Abstract: An examination of the quality of operations at private and public prisons is essential to making informed decisions about the desirability of using private and public prisons. Previous studies have...
TL;DR: Recent trends towards more severe forms of punishment in western nations have been interpreted as undermining the central tenets of penal modernity: rationality, scientism and restraint as discussed by the authors. But, as stated in
Abstract: Recent trends towards more severe forms of punishment in western nations have been interpreted as undermining the central tenets of penal modernity: rationality, scientism and restraint. Analyses o...
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the racial dynamics of contemporary prison privatization in the USA from the perspective of social disorganization theory, relying particularly on the concepts of "social a...
Abstract: This article explores the racial dynamics of contemporary prison privatization in the USA from the perspective of social disorganization theory. It relies particularly on the concepts of ‘social’ a...
TL;DR: Hough et al. as discussed by the authors argue that incorporating public opinion into sentencing or parole decision making carries many dangers; it may result in populist justice, with adverse consequences for offenders’ rights, and the principles underlying sentencing and conditional release.
Abstract: One of the key questions relating to punishment and society is how – or whether – the views of the community should influence the sentencing and/or parole systems. For some people, incorporating public opinion into sentencing or parole decision making carries many dangers; it may result in populist justice, with adverse consequences for offenders’ rights, and the principles underlying sentencing and conditional release. On the other hand, excluding the public from the sentencing and parole systems may exacerbate criticism of the criminal justice system. For years, opinion surveys in all western nations have revealed widespread public dissatisfaction with sentencing and parole (see, for example, Flanagan and Longmire, 1996; Roberts and Stalans, 1997; Hough and Roberts, 1999). Judges are perceived as being out of touch with the views of the communities that they are elected or appointed to serve,1 while parole boards are regarded as contributing to leniency by releasing prisoners well before the expiry of the sentence. The widespread perception of leniency in sentencing and parole arises from misperceptions: surveys routinely demonstrate that most members of the public underestimate by a significant margin the severity of sentences imposed, as well as the length of time that people convicted of murder actually serve in prison (see Hough and Roberts, 1998; Steiner et al., 1998). The apparent public demand for harsh punishment has not been ignored by politicians and legislatures. In most jurisdictions, offenders convicted of murder are sentenced to life imprisonment, and the only way in which these sentences are mitigated is through the use of parole.2 The force of public opinion may explain, in part at least, the existence of long, mandatory terms of imprisonment imposed on offenders convicted of murder. Granting parole to offenders convicted of murder can further undermine public confidence in sentencing. Examples abound from many countries. The case of Willie Horton is most often cited in the USA. The impending release (in 2001, on parole) of the juveniles convicted of the murder of James Bulger has generated considerable public concern and news media coverage in Britain. Life prisoners therefore present the criminal justice system with a formidable
TL;DR: The politics of law and order played only a modest role in the British General Election of 2001 as mentioned in this paper. But that role was shaped by a near consensus between New Labour and Conservative agendas for more pu...
Abstract: The politics of law and order played only a modest role in the British General Election of 2001. But that role was shaped by a near consensus between New Labour and Conservative agendas for more pu...
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how the marketing of penal commodities and the use of "security" as a selling point has developed and proliferated over the past 50 years in the US corrections market.
Abstract: In this article, I examine how the marketing of penal commodities and the use of ‘security’ as a selling point has developed and proliferated over the past 50 years in the US corrections market. Us...
TL;DR: In the summer of 2001, the Home Office issued the Report of the Sentencing Review containing over 50 recommendations to reform the sentencing and parole systems in England and Wales as mentioned in this paper, and the White Pape...
Abstract: In the summer of 2001, the Home Office issued the Report of the Sentencing Review containing over 50 recommendations to reform the sentencing and parole systems in England and Wales. The White Pape...
TL;DR: In a policy paper published in February 2001, the Home Office (2001a) announced it was considering basic changes in the sentencing policy which would place substantially more emphasis on the offender's previous criminal record than has been permissible under the desert-oriented approach embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A new framework for criminal sentencing is under consideration for
England and Wales. In a policy paper published in February 2001, the
Home Office (2001a) announced it was considering basic changes in
sentencing policy which would place substantially more emphasis on
the offender’s previous criminal record than has been permissible under
the desert-oriented approach embodied in the Criminal Justice Act
1991.2 There followed, in the summer of the same year, a ‘Sentencing
Framework Review’ by a senior civil servant, John Halliday (Home
Office 2001b, hereafter referred to as the ‘Halliday Report’), which offers
various options for change, but ones in which this increased emphasis
on the criminal record is an assumed central element.
TL;DR: The death toll emerging from Turkey's harrowing prison crisis continues to rise with 57 deaths, at the time of writing, since over 1000 protesters began death fasts and hunger strikes in October 2000, and 30 political prisoners were killed in December 2000 as Turkish security forces violently attempted to transfer protesting prisoners to F-Type prisons as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The death toll emerging from Turkey’s harrowing prison crisis continues to rise with 57 deaths, at the time of writing, since over 1000 protesters began death fasts and hunger strikes in October 2000. Some 27 prisoners and their supporters have already died as a result of death fasts initiated in protest over the Turkish government’s decision to transfer political prisoners from dormitory-based prisons into the new single cell F-Type prisons. A further 30 political prisoners were killed in December 2000 as Turkish security forces violently attempted to transfer protesting prisoners to F-Type prisons. The Turkish state’s appalling human rights record is well known,1 but the current tragedy unfolding in its jails has, in part, been engineered by Europe. The impetus for this major change in Turkish prison accommodation policy is driven by an accord between the Turkish state’s desire to curb the power of its political prisoners, and by pressure from the Council of Europe, which endorses the wholesale transition to F-Type prisons as part of the process of Turkey’s democratization.2 There is, it seems a penological tenet, held by the moral custodians of penal policy in Europe that single cell prison accommodation is a mark of a civilized society representing a significant evolutionary development from the dormitory style accommodation characteristic of many Third World prisons. Dormitories or wards are seen as inhumane, characterized by overcrowding, squalor and violence – a bureaucratic and managerial nightmare. Thus is the position of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Following a visit to Turkey in August 1996 the CPT reported:
TL;DR: The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society as discussed by the authors is a history of crime in the UK and the USA in the last quarter of the 20th century.
Abstract: With the publication of his influential article ‘The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society’ (1996), David Garland introduced his latest project, that of examining what has been ‘going on’ in response to crime in the UK and the USA in the last quarter of the 20th century. As the project has progressed, he has turned his attention increasingly from the ‘what’ question to the ‘why question’: what do these new strategies represent, and how are they to be understood? Garland’s project is brought to full fruition in this important new book. The book is in many ways a synthesis of the method and perspective of his earlier books Punishment and welfare: A history of penal strategies (1985) and Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory (1990). It combines the careful detailing of actual penal practices, their goals and their ideological/political character in the earlier book with the cultural theoretical framework developed at the end of the later book. Garland’s method is a structured phenomenology. It is phenomenological in that it builds from descriptions of things – events, legislation, policy and practice innovations – and looks at how they can be grouped; their essential characteristics distilled; patterns, commonalities and differences drawn out. Description then moves up to analysis to see how they can be comprehended and explained. It is structural in that phenomena are firmly located in a historically specific material/political/social culture: late modernity. The phenomenological, things up, approach means that he offers us a multiplicity of developments to be explained; there is no careful selection of items which exemplify a chosen theoretical framework. The structural approach means that crime control developments are posited as arising from, and their form constituted by, the main imperatives of modernity. As he says, all change and innovation are responses to ‘the most basic transformative forces of modern times: the economic force of capitalist competition and the political struggle for social and political equality’ (p. 78). Garland presents a historical-cultural account of strategies of crime control from around 1975 to 2000. His approach to history is that of disrupted evolutionism, which means that social-political forms are expressions of the working out of modernity, but that this evolutionary progress is disrupted from time to time by events. This
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors introduce students to issues of privatization in criminal justice, and introduce non-American readers to the intricacies of the American criminal justice system, American-style privatization, and business-government connection in the United States.
Abstract: students to issues of privatization in criminal justice, and to introduce non-American readers to the intricacies of the American criminal justice system, American-style privatization, and business–government connection in the United States. I do, however, have some criticisms of the volume. First, the title – Privatization in criminal justice – is somewhat misleading. Nine of the 12 contributions, and certainly the strongest contributions, focus exclusively or almost exclusively only on privatization in corrections. Three that do not are not particularly strong: the examination of bail is thin (and in my view wrong), the discussion of private adjudication is off the mark, and the discussion of privatization of police (given the massive amount of literature on this topic) barely begins to scratch the surface. Second, there is nothing on privatization of juvenile corrections, despite the fact that half or so of all kids in custody in the United States are placed with some form of private providers. Once again, kids remain invisible. Third, there is a strong anti-privatization bias that creeps in to almost all the essays in this volume. Perhaps it is deserved. But given the fact that scholars have long regarded Anglo-American criminal justice institutions as abysmal failures, one wonders why there is not a somewhat more charitable stance or at least wait-and-see attitude toward recent privatization experiments. Certainly things can go from bad to worse, and perhaps they have. But conditions in existing criminal justice are so bad, the contemporary experiment so new, the privatization efforts to date so puny, and the assessments so tentative, that the impulsive stance against privatization seems unwarranted and almost unscholarly. One gets the impression that the authors believe that anything championed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan simply must be bad. But, given the embarrassing record of traditional public criminal justice institutions, one might reasonably welcome some experimentation of just about any sort. Given the volume’s editors’ repeated emphasis on the value of perspective and context, the reader might expect this much. These criticisms are more than quibbles, but they are not meant to damn the book. It is a fine collection, a useful teaching resource. The best of its essays are strong indeed, and most of the rest are perfectly satisfactory. The several detailed case studies alone are in themselves worth the price of the book. They are informative, insightful and engaging. The book is intended for classroom use, and in this it is likely to be highly successful. Malcolm M. Feeley University of California at Berkeley, USA
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a critique of discriminatory criminal justice practices that severely constrict the life chances of people of color and at the same time, significantly weaken the viability of democracy in the USA.
Abstract: private facilities, and the state is still ultimately responsible for the well-being of inmates unlike previous privatization efforts, namely the convict lease system (Harding, 2000). Furthermore, there is no account of the complexity and subtly of state governance where particular institutional arrangements constrain but also enable the agency of political actors, state officials, corrections administrators, and criminal justice actors, especially judges and attorneys. But overall, the collection’s analytical and empirical limitations should not distract readers from the work’s main contribution, that is, a moving critique of discriminatory criminal justice practices that severely constrict the life chances of people of color and at the same time, significantly weaken the viability of democracy in the USA.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the key to the dynamics of any prison lies, not in its buildings, nor in the nature of the rules and regulations which are imposed by the central prison administration, but in the daily relationship between the two main sets of players, prisoners and front line staff.
Abstract: The working premise adopted by the authors of this useful volume is that the key to the dynamics of any prison lies, not in its buildings, nor in the nature of the rules and regulations which are imposed by the central prison administration, but in the daily relationship between the two main sets of players, prisoners and front line staff. These are the two ever-present elements in every prison and, for better or for worse, they are the two groups with the greatest influence on how any prison system develops. No prison administration can do anything about the nature of the prisoners it receives. Decisions about which offenders should go to prison and which should not lie in the hands of prosecutors and judges. Senior prison administrators do, on the other hand, have control over the sort of people who are recruited as staff members, how they are trained and the professional standards which are expected of them. The most discerning among practitioners, policy makers and academics have always recognized that the influence of prison personnel is the key to the development of any prison system. An apocryphal prison director in the United States of America once said, ‘If you give me the choice between a completely new prison with all the latest technology but a bad staff, and a prison made of tents with a good staff, I will always choose the one with good staff.’1 On this premise, any discussion about the nature of a prison must begin from an examination of the role which first line staff are expected to carry out in their daily interactions with prisoners. Once that has been defined and analysed decisions can be made about what sort of individuals are best fitted to carry out these functions and how they should be professionally trained. The reality in many countries is that the social standing of prison personnel in their communities is very low. It is often a poorly paid occupation. People work in the prison service only because they cannot find a better job. They may, for example, come to the prison service because they have been unable to find work elsewhere in their first choice law enforcement agencies, such as the police. An alternative reason may be that prisons have been built in areas of high unemployment and men and women come to work there after being made redundant from previous industrial employment. In a number of countries prison staff may well be ashamed of or at least embarrassed about what they do and will be reluctant to tell their friends where they work. They mix socially only with work colleagues because of the stigma attached to their work. In such an environment it is likely that the authorities will pay little attention to training them properly. It may be that lip service is paid to the professional nature of their task but the reality is that they are regarded as little more than guards, whose primary duty is simply to make sure that they lock up the same number of prisoners at the end of the day as they opened at its beginning. In such circumstances staff who are poorly paid, badly trained and who merit little respect in their social circles are likely to be afraid as they go about their daily duties and they may well cope with that fear by treating prisoners without feeling and sometimes with brutality. As a consequence, a prison which is staffed by people who have no pride in what they do and who are not confident in their work, is likely to be an unsafe and a dangerous place. In a country where resources are scarce and difficult choices have to be made about priorities, there should be no hesitation about what is most important in the prison field. If there is a choice between spending money on closed circuit BOOK REVIEWS
TL;DR: Pisciotta as mentioned in this paper provides a history of the Maryland Penitentiary and its history of punishment, corrections, and social control for the Maryland Historical Society (MHS).
Abstract: ous. Drawings of the ball and chain and shower bath and photographs of more recent disciplinary tools – the ‘cuffing up’ rope system, iron claw, and tear gas billy – allow readers to envision the state’s changing responses to inmate resistance. Unfortunately, readers familiar with the literature on the history of punishment, corrections, and social control may find this book lacking in a number of important respects. A number of seminal prison histories are not citied in the bibliography. The analysis lacks theoretical depth and sophistication. The author does not apply, test, or even acknowledge the importance of theoretical frameworks and issues related to punishment and social control. Attempts to link the operation of the institution to broader economic, political, social, cultural, and legal contexts are generally superficial – more often, they are left completely unexplored. The book’s conclusion, which is buried at the end of the last chapter, makes no attempt to synthesize the history of the Maryland Penitentiary, extract lessons, and offer policy recommendations. Put simply, this is an uncritical march of progress institutional hagiography that fails to ask important questions about the ‘kind intentions’ of the state. These criticisms are, however, somewhat peripheral. The author’s primary aim is to provide a popular-chronological history of the Maryland Penitentiary for the Maryland Historical Society – not to write a sophisticated social or intellectual history of punishment and social control for an advanced academic audience. Readers interested in learning more about the basic history of the Maryland Penitentiary will, then, find this book informative. Criminal justice, social, and intellectual historians who are interested in exploring more complex theoretical issues regarding the nature of social control may also profit from using this book as a foundation to revisit the history of the Maryland Penitentiary to determine whether it was, indeed, a ‘monument to good intentions’. Al Pisciotta Kutztown University, PA, USA
TL;DR: For every word in the book that gives succour to today’s alarming trends in criminal justice policy, there are 10 more that expose cant, ignorance and confusion.
Abstract: himself, had much more to offer. On the other hand, this new book is a major contribution to our understanding of criminal justice and its contemporary politics. For every word in the book that gives succour to today’s alarming trends in criminal justice policy, there are 10 more that expose cant, ignorance and confusion. For a philosophical work to engage so closely with current politics and practice without sacrificing philosophical quality is a rare achievement indeed. John Gardner University of Oxford, UK