Pavol Hudáček
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Peter Fransen and Peter Scharff Smith
Introduction In 1974 the planning of a new Danish high-security prison outside of Ringe, on the island Funen, was well underway and the construction committee pulling the strings authored an internal note on the process and the future plans. Under the heading ‘Basic principles’ the committee declared that the coming prison ‘should be run with the greatest possible co-influence from officers as well as prisoners’.1 In this spirit the already appointed governor, Erik Andersen, planned to use his prison staff in a novel manner in order to create a new kind of relational work between officers and prisoners. To achieve this Andersen chose, and was granted the authority to proceed with, a radical approach in the sense that he wanted to staff his prison primarily with officers who had no previous experience working in prisons (Andersen, 1977, p. 125.). A clear and conscious attempt to break with the path dependency (as coined by Douglas North) of an otherwise very historically rooted Danish prison estate (Smith, 2003).
RAFFAELE RODOGNO
ABSTRACT. The emotions of shame and guilt have recently appeared in debates concerning legal punishment, in particular in the context of so called shaming and guilting penalties. The bulk of the discussion, however, has focussed on the justification of such penalties. The focus of this article is broader than that. My aim is to offer an analysis of the concept of legal punishment that sheds light on the possible connections between punishing practices such as shaming and guilting penalties, on the one hand, and emotions such as guilt, shame, and perhaps humiliation, on the other. I contend that this analysis enhances our understanding of the various theories of punishment that populate this part of criminal law theory and thereby sharpens the critical tools needed to assess them. My general con- clusion is that, in different ways, all of the theories we encounter in this area can benefit from paying renewed attention to the nature of the connection between the state s act of punishing and its expected or perceived emotional effect on the individual.
Clive R Hollin
If punishment is a likely consequence of crime, it follows that the population at large should be deterred from committing crimes in order to avoid being punished. The effectiveness of this proposition is arguably reflected in national crime rates: If punishment is seen to be done, then the crime rate should remain reasonably con- stant. However, the rate at which crimes are committed are subject to many diverse influences, such as levels of employment and demographic fluctuations; so that in the main, the national crime rate is a blunt measure of criminal justice practice. The general deterrent hypothesis has been tested using the special case of the death penalty. A pre–post effect can be calculated for countries that abolish the death penalty or, as with New Zealand, where over a period of years the death penalty is abolished, brought back, and then finally abol- ished. The complexities of the analyses, necessarily spanning long periods of time, have produced conflicting findings regarding the presence and size of any deterrent effect of capital punishment.
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen
All kinds of punishment can be discriminatory, but for capital punishment the charge of discrimination has played a central role in arguments for its abolishment. David Baldus concluded in a study that ‘the odds of a death sentence for those who kill whites in Georgia are 4.3 times higher than the odds of a death sentence for those who kill blacks’.1 In 1987 this work was used to challenge the execution of death row prisoner, Warren McClesky, in the Supreme Court on the grounds of an ‘unfair racial bias in the administration of the death penalty in Georgia’.2 The Supreme Court dismissed the argument, but the debate about how discrimination bears on the justifiability of punishment has continued. In 1997 the American Bar Association called for a moratorium on the death penalty partly because of ‘the continuing problem of racial bias in the administration’ of it.3
Anthony Morgan Hayley Boxall Kym Lindeman Jessica Anderson
As a research organisation, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is often confronted by the challenge of how best to facilitate the transfer of research findings into effective crime prevention policies and programs. While recognition of the importance of evidence-based crime prevention continues to grow, along with the number of quality evaluations that have been conducted, simply producing and disseminating research findings is not enough to ensure that the accumulated evidence base is used to inform decision making. Instead, it is necessary to look at ways through which those working on the ground can be encouraged to make better use of the available evidence.
By John E. Eck University of Cincinnati Ronald V. Clarke Rutgers University and Rob T. Guerette Florida International University
The fact that crime is heavily concentrated on particular people, places and things has important implications for prevention. It suggests that focusing resources where crime is concentrated will yield the greatest preventive benefits. Researchers have therefore begun to develop concepts intended to guide prevention that capture different aspects of this concen- tration. These include “repeat offenders” – who commit a disproportionate amount of total recorded crime (Spelman, 1994); “hot spots” – places with high rates of crime (Sherman et al., 1989; Weisburd et al., 1992); “crime generators” – places that are high in crime because they are exceptionally busy (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1995); crime attractors” – places that contain many suitable crime targets without adequate protection (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1995); “repeat victims” – who suffer a series of crimes in a relatively short period of time (Farrell and Pease, 1993); and “hot products” – wh
Robert Werth
In recent decades, risk prediction has proliferated in the penal realm. Risk instruments currently guide an array of correctional decisions—such as participation in diversion programs, the provision of correctional services, and probation and parole supervision levels—and are being increasingly utilized or considered in pretrial detention and criminal sentencing. This article reviews empirical and theoretical accounts of the proliferation and effects of risk in the penal realm and also reflects on ongoing debates about the promises and perils of risk. Risk techniques have impacted the practices, discourses, and logics of punish- ment.
Disusun Untuk Memenuhi Tugas Pada Mata Kuliah Hadist Tarbawi
Reward dan Punishment secara sederhana adalah pemberian hadiah bagi orang yang melakukan hal yang baik dan memberikan hukuman ketika melakukan hal yang buruk, konsep ini sering dipergunakan dalam dunia pendidikan. Sebagaimana pemberian hadiah kepada orang yang mendapatkan prestasi belajar dan tidak jarang pula pendidik memberikan hukuman bagi siswanya ketika memperbuat kesalahan atau melanggar peraturan yang telah disepakati.
Hadassa Noorda
Theorists of criminal law widely agree that state punishment involves harsh treatment and stigma and that states must therefore provide protections for targeted individuals. But certain regulatory measures can also be used to impose harsh treatment and stigma. This paper addresses the stigmatic impact of harsh regulatory measures. It argues that harsh regulatory measures that label targeted individuals as risky impose a stigma that has the potential to significantly affect these individual’s personal and professional relationships. Such measures include area restrictions applied to alleged terrorists and registration requirements for convicted sex offenders. I recommend ways of implementing legal safeguards for targeted individuals against the stigma involved in the employment of such measures.
University of Amsterdam School of Law/ NYU Center for Law and Philosophy
MATTHEW RITGER
Recent scholarship on the first English translation of Thomas More s Utopia has asked how its pub- lication in the 1550s fits with the larger agenda of Protestant Reformers who promoted the book alongside their other civic projects. This article argues that the initiatives of greatest relevance were the new house of correction at Bridewell (est. 1553 57) and the infamous Vagrancy Act of 1547 49, which failed to introduce slavery as a punishment in English law. Evidence of user inter- actions with the 1550s editions, including indexing, annotation, commonplacing, and quotation, helps to analyze how the text s complicated ideas about penal labor were received and reemphasized by early English readers. I N TR O D U C T I O N The best known feature of Utopian life is its communism, as Dominic Baker- Smith recently put it, and so one might think the most influential aspect of the original Utopia (1516) by Thomas More (1478 1535) has always been its crit- icism of private property.1 In contrast, this article argues that Utopia s most notable idea, at least in the two earliest editions of Ralph Robinson s (1520 77) first English translation (1551, 1556), was the protagonist Raphael Hythloday s contention that thieves ought to be put to work rather than put to death.2 If, as Miguel Abensour suggests, there are statements that function as genuine insti- tutions, then this might have been the closest thing More s dialogic Utopia had to a singular statement in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.3 This idea has been called by at least one modern historian the More tradition for its influence on English penology, and was frequently marked by early modern
By LEIGH GASKIN
I would like to recognize my committee, Dr. Guerrero, Dr. Bloodsworth-Lugo, and Dr. Leonard, for the labor put into this dissertation project. I am deeply grateful for each of your comments, support, and encouragement during the dissertation process. You all have been my dream team and have enabled me to do the best I could with this task. I hope each of you can find yourself somewhere in this work, as your voice and guidance shaped the project and its effectiveness.
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Program in American Studies
Davison Machisa1, Constance Gutuza2, Tichaona Mapolisa3
The study aimed to assess the quality of education in low-fee paying private high schools in the Mabelreign/Warren Park district in the Harare Metropolitan Province of Zimbabwe while paying particular attention to teachers` perspectives. A clear assessment of quality education was essential to bridge the knowledge gap on the quality of education in low-fee paying private high schools. It is also important to mention that the study was unique as it assessed the quality of education in low-fee paying private high schools in an education set-up where there was a massive increase in the population of private high schools. The study was guided by the systems theory which looks at the phenomenon at hand through the lens of interrelatedness of elements in the low-fee paying private high schools’ systems. The study adopted a quantitative method research approach, descriptive survey design, and data triangulation method. More so, the sample for the study was 44 respondents from three (3) low-fee paying private high schools in Mabelreign/Warren Park district. The sample was chosen using simple random technique from teachers that were present at each school. This study used bar graphs to analyse data collected. The study concluded that a safe learning environment has a positive contribution to quality education in low-fee paying private high schools. The study recommended that administrators in low-fee paying private high schools should ensure that anti- bullying mechanisms are put in place in order to create a safe learning environment to all the learners.
Karsten J. Struhl
The move from cultures of revenge to societies with criminal justice systems and retributive punishment is undoubtedly a progressive historical development. However, it is by no means the case that revenge has disappeared. In this essay, I shall argue that revenge conceals itself precisely in legal retributive punishment. I also argue that legal retributive punishment is a substitution of public for pri- vate revenge and, therefore, a form of controlled revenge. I shall also explore the implications of these claims, implications that move in two very different politi- cal directions—as a reason to allow the victim more opportunity to express and exercise her emotions of revenge in the legal system; and as a reason to be suspi- cious of the retributive theory of punishment and the way in which it manifests itself in the criminal justice system.
Alessandro De Giorgi
Since the early 1980s, global processes of capitalist transformation across Western societies have revolutionized both the field of production and the com- plex of governmental institutions, practices, and technologies that, in the after- math of World War II, had consolidated into the Keynesian welfare state (Jessop, 1996, 2016; Mishra, 2014). The neoliberal paradigm of governance that has come to dominate Western societies through the last quarter of the twentieth century has resulted in a drastic redistribution of social wealth toward the top of the racial and class hierarchy, a vertical increase in economic inequalities, an acute precarization of work within increasingly segmented labor markets, a mas- sive attack on workers’ rights, and a systematic dismantling of the social safety net that had been instituted in the wake of the Keynesian compromise between capital and labor (Bonefeld, 2017; Harvey, 2005; Schram, 2015). In this sense, the neoliberal revolution has involved an organized assault against the economic relevance and political centrality of industrial labor – and, specifically in the USA, against the radical struggles for racial justice that had emerged from civil rights movement (Camp, 2016; Flamm, 2005; Parenti, 1999: 3–44).
The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, was a study of how humans will turn to violence when given the power to do so. The infamous experiment had its flaws, but the point it makes stands. This is prevalent in many real-world situations, most of all including prison itself. The current system revolving around courts and prisons was created to keep the general public safe, but it is now used as a power play. Countless people are wrongly convicted of crimes because of discrimination and so many more are abused in prison by guards or fellow prisoners. The prison system should be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment because punishing criminals only gives them more reasons to commit crime and reduces public safety, the current system is rigged against minority and lower class groups, and authorities such as judges and prison guards have too much power and a sentence or experience in prison is entirely based on luck of the draw.
Christopher Nathan
Some argue against coercive preventive measures on the grounds that they amount to cloaked forms of punishment. Others offer a qualified defence of such measures on the grounds that such measures have substantively different goals and purposes from punishment. Focusing on the case of civil preventive injunctions, I clear the ground and provide reasons for a third logical possibility: that coercive preventive measures are relevantly similar to punishment, but this does not itself give us a rea- son to oppose them. ‘Punishment’ has a great deal of rhetorical force, and it thereby distracts us from the justificatory work that we need to do to specify proper restric- tions on the state’s coercive powers. Whereas many commentators have proposed that legal theory provides grounds for challenging civil preventive orders, I argue for the opposite view. If we understand properly the function of civil preventive orders, we will endorse them at least in principle, and will come to rethink some central ideas in the grounding of the criminal justice processes.
E. Frankot,
This chapter provides an overview of punishment in late medi- eval Kampen in order to provide a context for the use of banishment. It discusses various punishments utilised in Kampen, such as symbolic, shameful, corporal and capital punishments, fines and imprisonment, as well as some of the town’s officials involved in punishment.
Banishment in the Late Medieval Eastern Netherlands,
By Netanel Dagan and Adiel Zimran
Punishment is often performed through judicial texts. Narrative criminology scholarship, however, has paid little attention to how criminalised people engage with these texts when constructing their self-narratives. To ll this gap, based on qualitative ndings from formerly incarcerated people in Israel, this paper aimed to theorise their engage- ment with their sentencing remarks (SR). We found that they experienced their SR as text that held communicative, transformative and physical dimensions. The ndings showed that SR impacted criminalised persons by individualising the penal dialogue, transforming their identity, and serving as objects for performing rituals during their imprisonment and upon release. The ndings contribute to an understanding of the connection between judicial work and incarcerated people s desistance and identity-making pro- cesses through the textual bridge of SR.
Christopher Belshaw
Suppose we accept that punishment can be legitimate. What form should it take? Many of us believe that it can be acceptable to fine or imprison someone, but that capital punishment, along with corporal punishment in its various manifestations, is wholly unacceptable. I suggest that it is hard to account for or justify this distinction. But granting that resistance to these latter forms is unlikely to be dislodged, and granting too that imprisonment in particular is hardly problemfree, it is worth considering whether there might be alternatives. And I argue here that we should consider enforced coma as a procedure having many advantages over the more familiar methods of delivering a penalty. Of course, there are disadvantages also. The aim isn’t to offer a detailed and practical solution to the problem of crime, but to explore some of the presumptions and principles involved in our thinking about punishment.
Journal of Controversial Ideas 2021,