Critical Criminology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 193–210 | Cite as

You Say Regulation, I Say Punishment: The Semantics and Attributes of Punitive Activity

Article

Abstract

Recent trends in crime control have given new energy to an age-old question, namely what kinds of activity qualify as punishment. In addressing this question, jurists and scholars have often employed a logic that either restricts interpretations of punishment to traditional forms (e.g., prison, probation, death penalty) and functions (e.g., deterrence and retribution), or expands them to include the broader forms and functions of social control. This paper examines these opposing logics and considers an alternative logic based in common stipulations in power theory. Within this particular framework, punishment is conceived as action that is necessarily relational, intentional, personal and coercive.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (1995). Employing the mental health system to control sex offenders after penal incarceration. Law and Policy, 17, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, J., & Krisberg, B. (1981). Wider, stronger, and new nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and politics in organizations: The Social psychology of conflict, coalitions, and bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J. V., & MURPHY, W. D. (1998). What we know and do not know about assessing and treating sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 116–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benn, S. I., & Peters, R. S. (1959). Social principles and the democratic state. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Bierstedt, R. (1950). An analysis of social power. American Sociological Review, 15, 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, D. (1984). Toward a general theory of social control (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bronsteen, J., Buccafusco, C., & MASUR, J. S. (2010). Retribution and the experience of punishment. California Law Review, 98(5), 1463–1496.Google Scholar
  9. Chunn, D. E., & Gavigan, S. (1988). Social control: Analytical tool or analytical quagmire? Contemporary Crises, 12, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A., & Gibbs, J. P. (1965). Social controls: A reformation. Social Problems, 12, 398–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, S. (1979). The punitive city: Notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crises, 3, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawford, A. (1997). The local governance of crime. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: A theory of societal and political processes. New York: The Free press.Google Scholar
  15. Feinberg, J. (1970). Doing and deserving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Frauley, M. (2007). Toward an archaeological-realist Foucauldian analytics of government. British Journal of Criminology, 47(4), 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galaskiewicz, J. (1979). Exchange networks and community politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbs, J. P. (1966). Sanctions. Social Problems, 14, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon, D. R. (1995). Justice juggernaut: Fighting street crime. Controlling Citizens: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Howe, A. (1994). Punish and critique. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hudson, B. (1996). Understanding justice. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of Sociology, 81(1), 82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, R. (2000). Digital rule: Punishment. Control and Technology’, Punishment and Society, 2, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolber, A. J. (2009). The subjective experience of punishment. Columbia Law Review, 109, 182.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, A. (1963). The study of society: A unified approach. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  27. La Fond, J. Q. (1992) Washington’s sexually violent predator law: A deliberate misuse of the therapeutic state for social control. Seattle U.L. Rev, 15(3), 655–703.Google Scholar
  28. Lamb, S. (1994). The trouble with blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Lemert, E. M. (1981). Diversion in Juvenile justice: What hath been wrought? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 78(1), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levi, R. (2008). Auditable community: The moral order of Megan’s Law. British Journal of Criminology, 48(5), 583–603.Google Scholar
  32. Lianos, M., & Douglas, M. (2000). Dangerization and the end of deviance. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowman, J., Menzies, R. J., & Palys, T. S. (1987). Transcarceration: Essays in the sociology of social control. Aldershot England: Gower.Google Scholar
  34. Lucken, K., & Ponte, L. (2008). A just measure of forgiveness: Reforming occupational licensing regulatons for ex-offenders using BFOQ analysis. Law and Policy, 30, 46–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynch, M. (2001). From the punitive city to the gated community: Security and segregation across the social and penal landscape. University of Miami Law Review, 56(1), 89.Google Scholar
  36. Marsden, P. S., & Laumann, E. (1977). Collective action in a community elite: Exchange, influence resources, and issue resolution. In R. Liebert & A. Imershein (Eds.), Power, paradigms, and community research, 199–250. London: ISA/Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Marx, G. (1981). Ironies of social control. Social Problems, 28(3), 221–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mauer, M. (2002). Mass imprisonment and the disappearing voters. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 50–58). New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mayer, J. A. (1983). Notes towards a working definition of social control in historical analysis. In S. Cohen & A. Scull (Eds.), Social control and the state (pp. 17–33). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  41. McDonald, G. W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of a decade of theory and research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 841–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montague, P. (1995). Punishment as societal-defense. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  44. Morgan, P. M. (1977). Deterrence: A conceptual analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Morris, H. (1995). A Paternalistic theory of punishment. In J. G. Murphy (Ed.), Punishment and rehabilitation (3rd ed., pp.154–168). Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  46. Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishment in a rational sentencing system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1998). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Newman, G. (1978). The punishment response. Philadelphia: J.B Lippincot Company.Google Scholar
  49. O’MALLEY, P. (1999). Volatile and contradictory punishment. Theoretical Criminology, 3(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Platt, A. (1969). The child savers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1995). The new governance: Governing without government, ESRC state of Britain seminar II. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
  52. Rollman, E. M. (1998). Mental illness: A sexually violent predator is punished twice for one crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 985–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rose, N. (1994). Expertise and the government of conduct. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 14, 359–397.Google Scholar
  54. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rothman, D. J. (1981). Social control: The uses and abuses of the concept in the history of incarceration. Rice University Studies, 67, 9–20.Google Scholar
  56. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. SCHOPP, R. F., & STURGIS, B. J. (1995). Sexual predators and legal mental illness for civil commitment. Behavioral Science & Law, 13, 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schlossman, S. (1977). Love and the American Delinquent:The theory and practice of ‘progressive’ juvenile justice, 1825–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Scull, A. (1977). Decarceration: Community treatment and the deviant—a radical view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  60. Shearing, C. D., & Stenning, P. C. (1987). Say cheese! The disney order that is not so mickey mouse. In C. Shearing & P. Stenning (Eds.), Private policing (pp. 317–324). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Shepsle, K. (1992). Congress is a ‘they’, not an ‘it’: Legislative intent as oxymoron. International Review of Law & Economics, 12, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simon, J. (1998). Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 4, 452–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Staples, W. G. (2003). Everyday surveillance: Vigilance and visibility in postmodern life. Oxford, England: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey D. R. (1974). Criminology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  65. Szasz, T. (1963). Law, liberty, and psychiatry. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  66. Takagi, P. (1974). The correctional system. Crime and Social Justice, 2, 82–89.Google Scholar
  67. The Pew Center on States. (2009). 1 in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington D.C: Pew Charitable Trusts.Google Scholar
  68. Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). Washington, DC: New Press.Google Scholar
  69. Uggen, C. (2008). Editorial introduction: The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(3), 367–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Swaaningen, R. (1999). Reclaiming critical criminology: Social justice and the european tradition. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walker, N. (1991). Why punish?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Winick, B. J. (1998). Sex offender law in the 1990s: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1/2), 505–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wright, E. O. (1973). The politics of punishment. New York: Harper Row Publishers.Google Scholar

Legal Cases Cited

  1. Smith and Botelho v John Doe I et al. 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Kansas v Hendricks 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Flemming v Nestor 1960.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations