Suchergebnisse

It is now common in the sociology of punishment to lament that comparative penology has not matured as an area of research. While there have been seminal works in the comparative canon, their conceptual tools tend to be drawn from grand narratives and macro-structural perspectives. Comparative researchers therefore lack concepts that can help capture the complexity of penality within a single nation, limiting the crossnational perspective. Why is this relative lack of comparative refinement still the case? This article investigates this question by looking specifically at penal exceptionalism, a concept central to comparative penology. While punitiveness as a comparative and descriptive category has been critiqued, its converse, penal exceptionalism remains prevalent but undertheorised. Examining exceptionalism reveals that it is not merely the macro-structural approach to comparison that has limited the development of cross-national sociology of punishment, but the Anglocentric assumptions, which are the bedrock of comparative penology. In this essay, I argue that penal exceptionalism versus punitiveness is an Anglocentric formulation. These taken-for-granted assumptions have become so central to the comparative enterprise that they act as a barrier to developing new innovative comparative frameworks and concepts. The article concludes by suggesting some methodological strategies that are intended as a way of helping comparative penology to expand its toolkit and support the ongoing development of more equitable criminological knowledge.

In this paper I argue that if we are to make sense of why punishment practices differ between jurisdictions, then we should focus on the political cultures that shape penal practices. Political culture is conceived of here as a 'practical consciousness' (Williams 1964), made up of implicit and express cultural values and political commitments. Political culture informs how governments understand society and their role within it, and permeate decisions about how they should best respond to the problems of crime, punishment and social order. By grasping these differences in the politics of punishment, we can better illuminate the local and contingent forces that are fundamental in shaping differences in cross-national penality.

Prison agencies around the world are reporting a rise in the use of illicit communication devices in prison. Nevertheless, there is very little prison sociological research into how prisoners themselves communicate online. Using Russia as a case study, this paper reports findings from new research on how prisoners are engaging with the internet and the effects of this on prisoner agency and prison structure. Our main finding is that Russian penality sits at the nexus of two processes. First, it is de-institutionalised in that the prison, discursively speaking, is no longer fixed to a built form. Second, it is reflexively re-territorialised in that it places prisoner agency onto a third space. The paper presents a new conceptual framework of 'prisoners as absent', which reflects penality in Russia as culturally contingent and politically resilient. The interplay between de-institutionalisation and re-territorialisation has produced on a new penal imaginary - a carceral motif for the twenty first century - in the form of a virtual world.

Purpose: Prisons in the sub-Saharan African region face unprecedented challenges during the COVID19 pandemic. In Malawi, the first prison system case of COVID-19 was notified in July 2020. While, prison settings were included in the 2nd domestic COVID-19 response plan within the Law Enforcement cluster (National COVID-19 preparedness and response plan, July-December 2020), they were initially not included in the K157 billion (USD 210 million) COVID-19 fund. Design/methodology/approach: A multi-method situation assessment of the COVID-19 response and human rights assurance of prisoners and staff was conducted in a large prison complex in Malawi. Qualitative research underpinned by the Empirical Phenomenological Psychological (EPP) framework consisted of interviews with key informants such as prison health personnel, senior prison staff, penal and judicial policymakers, government and civil society organisations (n = 14) and focus group discussions with consenting male (n = 48) and female prisoners (n = 48), and prison wardens (n = 24). Prison site visits were supported by detailed observations based on the WHO Checklist for COVID-19 in prisons (n = 9). Data were collected and analysed thematically using the EPP stepwise approach and triangulated based on Bronfenbrenner's model conceptualising COVID-19 as a multi-level event disrupting the prison eco-system. Findings: The results are presented as MICRO-MESO level individual and community experiences of incarceration during COVID-19 spanning several themes: Awareness raising and knowledge of COVID-19 in prisons; Prison congestion and the impossibility of social distancing; Lack of adequate ventilation, hygiene and sanitation and Provisions and correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE); MESO-MACRO level interplay between the prison community of prisoners and staff and judicial policy impacts; Medical system COVID-19 response, infrastructure and access to healthcare; COVID19 detection and quarantine measures and Prisoner access to the outside world. Originality: This unique situation assessment of the Malawian prison system response to mitigate COVID-19 illustrates the dynamics at the micro-level whereby prisoners rely on the State and have restricted agency in protecting themselves from disease. This is due to severe structural inadequacies based on low resource allocation to prisons leading to a compromised ability to prevent and treat disease; an infirm and congested infrastructure and bottlenecks in the judicial system fueling a continued influx of remand detainees leading to high over capacity. Multi-pronged interventions involving key stakeholders, with prison management and line Ministry as coordinators are warranted to optimise COVID-19 interventions and future disease outbreaks in the Malawian prison system.

Cover -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- List of Boxes -- Abbreviations -- 1 Introduction -- DEFINING PENOLOGY -- SCOPE OF THE BOOK -- STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK -- AIMS OF THE BOOK -- 2 Punishment and the Foundations of Penal Theory -- INTRODUCTION -- FORWARD-LOOKING APPROACHES -- BACKWARD-LOOKING APPROACHES -- SCHOOLS OF CRIMINOLOGY -- SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF PUNISHMENT -- CONCLUSION -- 3 Rethinking Penal Theory -- INTRODUCTION -- THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE -- DEFINITIONS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE -- RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN PRACTICE -- DOES RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WORK? -- CRITICISMS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE -- RETRIBUTION, REHABILITATION OR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE? -- CONCLUSION -- 4 Sentencing -- INTRODUCTION -- THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF SENTENCING -- SENTENCING GUIDELINES -- THE SENTENCING PROCESS -- MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SENTENCING RESTRICTIONS -- CONCLUSION -- 5 Out of Court Disposals and Fines -- INTRODUCTION -- OUT OF COURT DISPOSALS -- DISCHARGES -- FINES -- CONCLUSION -- 6 Community Penalties -- INTRODUCTION -- THE AIMS AND ETHOS OF PROBATION -- COMMUNITY PENALTIES -- OFFENDER MANAGEMENT -- GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSE -- CONCLUSION -- 7 Prisons and the Use of Imprisonment -- INTRODUCTION -- A BRIEF HISTORY -- THE AIMS AND PAINS OF IMPRISONMENT -- THE PRISON ESTATE -- PRISON PRIVATISATION -- CONCLUSION -- 8 The Prison Experience -- INTRODUCTION -- INSPECTION -- CROWDING AND ACCOMMODATION -- CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES AND TIME OUT OF CELL -- DRUGS AND CONTRABAND -- SAFETY -- STAFFING -- THE PRISON OFFICER EXPERIENCE -- THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE -- CONCLUSION -- 9 Release, Recall and Reintegration -- INTRODUCTION -- RELEASE -- RECALL -- REINTEGRATION -- CONCLUSION -- 10 Dangerous Offenders -- INTRODUCTION -- SENTENCING POLICY -- PRISON CLIMATES FOR DANGEROUS OFFENDERS -- RISK MANAGEMENT IN COMMUNITY SETTINGS -- RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES.

Purpose: The first case of COVID-19 in the Malawi prison system was reported in July 2020. Human rights organisations raised concerns about the possibility of significant COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths in the prison system, due to the poor infrastructure, lack of health care and adequate COVID-19 mitigation measures, existing co-morbidities (tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis C), malnutrition and poor health of many prisoners. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted a legal-realist assessment of the Malawian prison system response to COVID-19 during state disaster measures, with a specific focus on the right to health and standards of health care as mandated in international, African and domestic law. Findings: The Malawi prison system was relatively successful in preventing serious COVID-19 outbreaks in its prisons, despite the lack of resources and the ad hoc reactive approach adopted. Whilst the Malawi national COVID plan was aligned to international and regional protocols, the combination of infrastructural deficits (clinical staff, medical provisions) and poor conditions of detention (congestion, lack of ventilation, hygiene and sanitation) were conducive to poor health and the spread of communicable disease. The state of disaster declared by the Malawi government and visitation restrictions at prisons worsened prison conditions for those working and living there. Originality: In sub-Saharan Africa, there is limited capacity of prisons to adequately respond to COVID-19. This is the first legal-realist assessment of the Malawian prison system approach to tackling COVID-19, and it contributes to a growing evidence of human rights-based investigations into COVID19 responses in African prisons (Ethiopia, South Africa, Zimbabwe).

This article argues that while France's old penology remains well defended due to professional discretion and individualization of professional judgment in high security prisons ( maisons centrales), a new penal trend akin to an actuarial justice is observed in detention centres. This trend consists in governing 'at a distance' a mixed population of very different prisoner types. However, a cacophony of voices in the decision-making process, discretion, professional and unions stakes, face-to-face interactions, abilities of inmates to negotiate with staff members as well as disconnections and contradictions between fields of decision making are factors that explain the failure of the new penology in the most secure prisons. These organizational and professional factors are not linked to political conditions such as the welfare state or the new management of poverty as indicated by the authors of the new penology.