scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

Limits to Pain

01 Nov 1981-
About: The article was published on 1981-11-01 and is currently open access. It has received 228 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors feel challenged by the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and by the public responses to them in a maximalist understanding of restorative justice, as a usual suspect in promoting a maximalists understanding of justice.
Abstract: As a usual suspect in promoting a maximalist understanding of restorative justice, I feel challenged by the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and by the public responses to them Adv

5 citations


Cites background from "Limits to Pain"

  • ...Would this be where even Nils Christie accepted ‘absolute punishment’ to express the massive grief and mourning after terrible crimes (Christie, 1981)?...

    [...]

  • ...Are such atrocious terrorist attacks beyond the reach of opting first of all for possible reparative actions? Would this be where even Nils Christie accepted ‘absolute punishment’ to express the massive grief and mourning after terrible crimes (Christie, 1981)? It is a challenge that I cannot leave unanswered....

    [...]

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this article, the authors take an abolitionist position in assessing the complex relationships between rights discourse, imprisonment, reform and abolition, and show that while liberal rights-based frameworks can lay critical foundations for anti-carceral feminist activism, they provide an untenable mechanism for transforming and eliminating the violence and inequity embedded within and reproduced through the institutional structures of prisons and punishment.
Abstract: Campaigns challenging conditions in women’s imprisonment yield rich evidence of the repeated failures associated with penal reform programmes. In the Australian state of Victoria, such programmes have consistently failed to mitigate the discriminatory treatment and brutal conditions. Reforms have provided a progressive veneer, but have enabled the legitimisation and expansion of women’s imprisonment. Focused on the work of the pioneering 1982 Fairlea Research Group (FRG), this chapter takes an abolitionist position in assessing the complex relationships between rights discourse, imprisonment, reform and abolition. We show that while liberal rights-based frameworks can lay critical foundations for anti-carceral feminist activism, they provide an untenable mechanism for transforming and eliminating the violence and inequity embedded within and reproduced through the institutional structures of prisons and punishment.

5 citations

01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the practice of penal torture is not intrinsically wrong, while this is not the case for other modes of punishment, and they call this claim the asymmetry thesis.
Abstract: I argue here that the practice of penal torture is not intrinsically wrongful. A common objection against the practice of penal torture is that there is something about penal torture that makes it wrongful, while this is not the case for other modes of punishment. I call this claim the asymmetry thesis. One way to defend this position is to claim that penal torture is intrinsically wrongful. It is the claim I argue against here. I discuss and reject three versions this claim. I first address a version that is based on the idea that penal torture, unlike other modes of punishment, is intrinsically wrong because it is inhuman. I then address a version grounded on the claim that, because penal torture is an assault upon the defenseless, it is morally impermissible. Finally, I discuss a version that concerns the idea that penal torture attacks human dignity and undermine

4 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...See: Christie 1977, 1981; Hulsman 1986, 1991; Bianchi & van Swaaningen 1986; de Haan 1990; Zehr 1990; Van Ness 1993; Bianchi 1994; Walgrave 1994; Golash 2005 and Boonin 2008....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Apr 2018
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify a meso-community of care, concern and accountability that has been emerging as part of adult reparation panel procedures, and acknowledge some concerns within panel processes in that, by attempting to increase accountability for harms caused, there is a danger that panellists are blur the restorative lines between rehabilitation and genuine restoration and reparation.
Abstract: The community paradigm is continually cited as an important influence within restorative practices. However, this influence has not been sufficiently clarified. This article seeks to answer this conundrum by identifying a novel meso-commun‐ ity of care, concern and accountability that has been emerging as part of adult rep‐ aration panel procedures. This offender-centric community consists of traditionally secondary justice stakeholders led by criminal justice representative professionals including police officers and probation officials. It also includes lay volunteers and reparation programme officials dependent on state funding and cooperation. Pro‐ fessionalised panellists have led the development of surrogate familial bonds with offenders through the incorporation of a welfare ethos as part of case discourses. This care and concern approach has increased opportunities within case agree‐ ments for successful reintegration and rehabilitation. However, this article also acknowledges some concerns within panel processes in that, by attempting to increase accountability for harms caused, there is a danger that panellists are blur‐ ring the restorative lines between rehabilitation and genuine restoration and rep‐ aration.

4 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...6 In this regard, these preliminary introductions were arguably a small but vivid example of how panel practices can begin to chal‐ lenge the fundamentals of the conventional criminal justice process by increasing normative dialogue and emphasising ‘right relationships over right rules’ (Zehr, 1990: 211), thereby returning ownership of the criminal justice conflict back to the primary stakeholders most affected (Christie, 1981)....

    [...]

  • ...…the fundamentals of the conventional criminal justice process by increasing normative dialogue and emphasising ‘right relationships over right rules’ (Zehr, 1990: 211), thereby returning ownership of the criminal justice conflict back to the primary stakeholders most affected (Christie, 1981)....

    [...]

  • ...For Christie (1981), punishments should inflict as little pain as possible as we should be striving for an alternative to conventional style punishments rather than alternative punishments....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

1,628 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Nils Christie1
TL;DR: In this article, a court procedure that restores the participants' rights to their own conflicts is outlined, where the participants have lost their rights to participate in conflict resolution in the past.
Abstract: CONFLICTS are seen as important elements in society. Highly industrialised societies do not have too much internal conflict, they have too little. We have to organise social systems so that conflicts are both nurtured and made visible and also see to it that professionals do not monopolise the handling of them. Victims of crime have in particular lost their rights to participate. A court procedure that restores the participants' rights to their own conflicts is outlined.

1,046 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Feb 1979-Futures
TL;DR: The authors of as discussed by the authors suggest that a wide range of services which were once produced in the money economy are increasingly provided informally on a self-service basis. But they do not consider the role of the state in the provision of these services.

1,023 citations