Skip to main content
Log in

Between permissiveness and control: Community treatment and penal supervision

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Similar proposals have been put forward, and more readily accepted, in relation to other ‘problem persons’. In particular, mental health reformers have long argued that the many mental patients do not require incarceration in asylums and mental hospitals, but can be better treated in the community — see M. Miller,Evaluating Community Treatment Programs (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1977), and the more sceptical accounts of A. Scull,Decarceration: Community Treatment and the Deviant (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977), and S. Cohen,Visions of Social Control (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Miller,supra n.1, at the Preface and pp. 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. Cook,Vagrant Alcoholics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Quoted inReport of the Home Office Working Party on Habitual Drunken Offenders (London: M.H.M.S.O., 1971), para. 6.7.

  5. Report,supra n.5, at paras. 6.8–6.12.

  6. D. Goff, “The Legal Position in the USA”, in T. Cook, D. Gath & C. Hensman, eds.,The Drunkenness Offence (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1969), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid..

    Google Scholar 

  9. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at para. 7.8.

  10. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at app. K. Accounts of the backgrounds of habitual drunkards were based upon research into the backgrounds of selected groups of habitual drunkards, e.g. people appearing in court on drunkenness charges, prisoners with a record of drunkenness convictions, alcoholic patrons at a soup kitchen (see ch.5 of the Home Office Working Party's report and Cook et al,supra n.7, at part A). The researchers compiled biographical details of habitual drunkards and — although they denied his existence — constructed an image of the typical habitual drunkard. This was in order to provide a portrayal of the ‘habitual drunken offender’ as he is, but also to suggest what type of person becomes such an offender and why: “by what processes and interaction of causes his life takes that path” (Home Office Working Party, paras. 5.6–5.11). References to these details and characteristics are scattered throughout a variety of texts, reports and articles. Here, in order to avoid being too cumbersome, I will confine myself to just one or two references for each point. For a fuller description of this material see G. Johnstone,Medical Concepts and Penal Policy (University of Edinburgh, Ph.D thesis, 1989, unpublished), 146–55.

  11. M. Glatt, “Crime, Alcohol and Addiction”,Howard Journal 11/4 (1964), 274–84. See also Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at para 5.14 & app. K.

    Google Scholar 

  12. T. Cook, “Existing Facilities”, in Cook et al,supra n.7, at 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Hamilton, A. Griffith, B. Ritson, & R. Aitken,Detoxification of Habitual Drunken Offenders (Scottish Home and Health Dept, 1978), ch.7. See also P. d'Orban, “Habitual Drunken Offenders in Holloway Prison”, in Cook et al,supra n.7, at 51–62 and Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at para. 16.7 and apps. K & N.

  14. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5 at para. 5.13.

  15. Ibid.

  16. D. Gath, “The Male Drunk in Court”, in Cook et al,supra n.7, at 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cook,supra n.4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid. See also Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at para.16.12.

  19. Hamilton et al,supra n.14, at ch. 11.

  20. Ibid., ch.2.

  21. Gath,supra. n.18.

  22. S. Moody,Drunken Offenders in Scotland (Scottish Office, 1979), 28.

  23. Cook,supra n.13.

  24. Cook,supra n.4, at 32. See R. Light, “Policing Skid Row: Criminal Justice and the Habitual Drunkard”,Policing 2/2 (1986), 151–59 for a more complete account of the origins and development of the term ‘skid row’.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cook,supra n.4, at 32.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Glatt,supra n.12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. Pittman & C.W. Gordon,The Revolving Door: a Study of the Chronic Police Case Inebriate (Glencoe: Free Press, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5 at para. 7.8.

  29. Ibid. at para. 7.13.

  30. Ibid. at paras. 7.40–7.47.

  31. Ibid.

  32. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, ch.10. This criticism was also targeted at ‘staff-directed’ hostels for homeless alcoholics; the paternalism of these hostels was seen as an obstacle to therapy.

  33. P. Archard,Vagrancy, Alchoholism and Social Control (London: Macmillan Press, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  34. d'Orban,supra n. 14.

  35. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at para. 7.11.

  36. Ibid., ch.10.

  37. Cook,supra n.13.

  38. N. Ingram-Smith, “Prospects for the Future in the Community”, in Cook et al,supra n.7, at 145–49.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cook,supra n.13.

  40. T. Cook, “The Rathcoole Experiment”, app. N ofReport of the Home Office Working Party on Habitual Drunken Offenders (London: H.M.S.O., 1971), 236.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cook,supra n.4, at 26.

  42. For a more comprehensive discussion of the social structure of the rehabilitation hostel, see Johnstone,supra n.11 at 160–172. A number of experimental hostels were established, such as Rathcoole House in May 1966. For accounts of its regime see B. Pollak, “Rathcoole House — An Experiment in Rehabilitation”, in Cook et al,supra n.7, at 109–114, and Cook,supra n.42, andsupra n.4, at 15–28. A second hostel, ‘Lynette Avenue’, was opened in 1968. Hostels for habitual drunkards are discussed, more generally, in the report of the Home Office Working Party, chs. 10 & 11.

  43. Cook,supra n.4, at 23.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cook,supra n.42, at 230.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, ch. 12.

  46. Cook,supra n.4, at 19.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cook,supra n.42, at 229.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid. at 230. Cook,supra n.4, at 23, cites one resident of Rathcoole House as remarking: “I came here for sobriety not all this responsibility.”

  49. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at ch. 8.

  50. Ibid. at para. 11.26.

  51. Ibid. at para. 11.27.

  52. The reasons for the adoption of this rule are explained by Cook,supra n.42, andsupra n.4, at 17–20.

  53. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at 11.27.

  54. Ibid., ch.8.

  55. Cook,supra n.4, at 102.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid. at 24.

  57. Cook,supra n.42, at 231.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at chs. 6 and 15; Cook,supra n.4, ch.15 and Hamilton et al,supra n.14.

  59. Hamilton et al,supra n.14.

  60. Cook,supra n.4, at ch. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Report of the Home Office,supra n.5, at chs. 7–9 & 12–13.

  62. Ibid., ch.14. See also Cook,supra n.4.

  63. Cohensupra n.1, at 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cf. D. Garland, “Review Essay: Foucault's Discipline and Punish: An Exposition and Critique”, 4American Bar Foundation Research Journal (1986), 847–880.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

I would like to thank David Garland for his comments on an earlier draft of this essay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnstone, G. Between permissiveness and control: Community treatment and penal supervision. Law Critique 2, 37–61 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128437

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128437

Keywords

Navigation