Punishment & Society

In this paper I draw on qualitative material from the first complete data set of the ‘Measure of the Quality of Life in Detention’ (MQLD) survey in the UK to reflect on its implication for understanding and challenging these sites. While similarities between immigration detention centres and prisons make it tempting to place the testimonies from people in detention within the framework of the ‘pains of imprisonment’, I propose an alternative reading of these first-hand accounts. Rather than approaching them as sociological statements of suffering, caused by the loss of liberty, I interpret them as political statements which, in turn, demand a political response. Immigration removal centres (IRCs), these people assert, are fundamentally at odds with key values of a liberal democracy. Those detained within them are not considered to be equal members of a shared community of value; rather, their incarceration marks them out symbolically and, quite practically, as outsiders to these ideas. The pain people describe illuminates the need for a new politics of detention.

This article explores how prison staff in Australia view their work and how their work is viewed by others, by applying a theoretical framework of ‘dirty work’. ‘Dirty work’ is a social construction that refers to tasks that are ‘physically, socially or morally tainted’ ( Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999; Hughes, 1958) and this article will apply this concept to prison staff in Australia for the first time. The discussion is based on qualitative research in seven different Australian prisons, ranging from high to low security. The article illustrates how staff responds to working in a ‘dirty’ profession by reframing, refocusing, and recalibrating their daily work tasks; how the staff uniform can be utilised as a status shield and protector from taint; and how the stigma of ‘dirtiness’ tends to foster strong occupational and workgroup cultures which in turn makes cultural change of a profession difficult. The consequences of the dirty work stigma for staff and prisoners are discussed, with a focus on informal interactions, case work and dynamic security.

This article reassesses the relationship between state authority and violence in the context of border controls. Drawing on empirical research conducted with immigration and police officers in the UK, I show that the use of force in this context give rise to distinctively complex ethical questions which shape institutional and individual practices, and is entangled with the legally and politically fragile authority wielded by frontline staff. Faced with a morally, socially and politically controversial mandate, these officers devise a range of strategies to either minimize or conceal the use of violence. In doing so, they sometimes fall into oxymorons and euphemisms that at once evidence the shady line between coercion and consent, and shed light on the some of the profound moral dilemmas they encounter in doing border work. These dilemmas, I conclude, speak of broader challenges to the exercise of state coercive power, and the negotiated, contingent and provisional nature of state authority in a globalized, postcolonial and profoundly unequal world. I also argue for the social and intellectual urge to integrate the study of immigration enforcement in contemporary debates of state penality.

This article examines the underlying aims of denationalization of criminal offenders by framing the discussion within citizenship theory. It argues that such citizenship revocation policies exclude individuals who are perceived as non-ideal citizens under a complex vision of citizenship that combines communitarian and liberal undertones, which has significant consequences for detecting those with weak claims to membership. To develop this argument, the article advances in the following way. I first argue that the ‘protective’ function of citizenship, which has so far shielded domestic offenders from expulsion, has been eroding due to increasing reliance on denationalization. I then show, by employing an original study of European policies, that the ‘protective’ function of citizenship is eroding not only in general terms, but that it furthermore targets citizens of a particular profile that is continuously changing. Finally, I argue that recent revocation policies that are premised on security concerns, promote a complex vision of citizenship that combines elements of communitarian and liberal conceptions of belonging and works to exclude citizens of foreign descent who, at the same time, repudiate liberal values. Consequently, the status of the criminal rather than non-citizen, gains prominence in determining those at risk of exclusion from the polity.

To date, most criminal justice research on COVID-19 has examined the rapid spread within prisons. We shift the focus to reentry via in-depth interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals in central Ohio, specifically focusing on how criminal justice contact affected the pandemic experience. In doing so, we use the experience of the pandemic to build upon criminological theories regarding surveillance, including both classic theories on surveillance during incarceration as well as more recent scholarship on community surveillance, carceral citizenship, and institutional avoidance. Three findings emerged. First, participants felt that the total institution of prison “prepared” them for similar experiences such as pandemic-related isolation. Second, shifts in community supervision formatting, such as those forced by the pandemic, lessened the coercive nature of community supervision, expressed by participants as an increase in autonomy. Third, establishment of institutional connections while incarcerated alleviated institutional avoidance resulting from hyper-surveillance, specifically in the domain of healthcare, which is critical when a public health crisis strikes. While the COVID-19 pandemic affected all, this article highlights how theories of surveillance inform unique aspects of the pandemic for formerly incarcerated individuals, while providing pathways forward for reducing the impact of surveillance.

Using a combination of FOIA-requested legislative committee hearings and in-depth interviews, this manuscript investigates the work of Illinois prosecutorial lobbyists in state-level crime policy during a time of penal reform. I find that prosecutorial lobbyists are a regular and influential presence in policy discussions, advocating primarily for 'law and order' policies that expand prosecutorial discretion, even following the Great Recession. I also find that they repeatedly evoke their relationship to crime victims to frame their policy positions for a bipartisan audience. However, attention to discourse reveals that victims’ own interests regularly clash with prosecutorial discretion. These clashes create what I term discursive ruptures, or uncomfortable and surprising rhetorical fissures that emerge in what is otherwise seen as a near iron-clad political alliance. In such instances, prosecutors risk alienating a key source of their political legitimacy to protect their own discretionary authority. Beyond insight into momentary political discomfort, these ruptures suggest that the powerful and productive alliance between prosecutors and victims is neither as natural nor as robust as relational perspectives have generally assumed, unearthing fault lines in prosecutors’ unparalleled power to punish.

A humane approach to punishment has been integral to the work of the Danish Prisons and Probation Service. However, Danish penal policy has recently taken a punitive turn. What happens when punitive policies are adopted by a penal regime built on a humane approach to punishment? To address this question, this article focuses on prison officers at Vestre prison and how they adapt to punitive political decisions and prison policies. The increased focus on security in Danish prisons is considered, together with limitations set on welfare services available to non-citizen prisoners. Examination of officers’ subjectivities at Vestre prison shows that punitive penal policies have produced an environment fraught with tensions that affect prison work, institutional culture, and the officers’ professional identity. These findings also raise questions about the shifting nature of Danish penal power.

There is robust evidence that Asians are not treated differently from Whites and receive greater leniency than Blacks and Hispanics in criminal punishment. Some research findings even suggest that Asians receive the most favorable sentencing outcomes among all racial/ethnic groups. This line of research, however, has not paid attention to Asian nationality groups. Particularly, it is unclear whether there is within-race variation among offenders from different Asian countries. Using the data compiled by the United States Sentencing Commission to examine whether and how an Asian's nationality affects criminal punishment, this study focuses on sentences imposed on offenders who are Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean, Pakistani, and Vietnamese nationals. Results from logistic, ordinary least squares, and Tobit regression analyses indicate that with legal and extralegal factors held constant, Asians of different nationalities face varying odds of incarceration or downward departures, and they receive dissimilar sentence lengths.

Although the use of person-centered language has increased in recent years, its usage remains limited within the field of criminal justice, wherein terms such as ex-offender are frequently used to describe formerly incarcerated individuals. Research suggests that person-centered language matters for public opinion, but prior work has not examined the effect of language on support for the social reintegration of returning citizens. The present research experimentally manipulates the effects of the language used to describe individuals released from incarceration and the race of a hypothetical returning citizen on the following outcomes: negative stereotype endorsement, attitudinal social distance, and support for reintegrative initiatives. I find that person-centered language significantly reduces stigmatization of returning citizens, which ultimately increases support for reintegrative services. These findings suggest that humanizing changes to criminal justice discourse may have the capacity to shift public opinion and create a social context more conducive to reintegration after incarceration.

For decades, researchers have sought to understand the impact of imprisonment; yet we have a limited understanding of the lived experience of cell-sharing. To address this gap in knowledge, this paper draws on 37 semi-structured interviews with imprisoned adult men in Northern Ireland. While demonstrating that, for most, cell-sharing was a negative experience, imbued with discomfort, unease and distress, a new conceptual framework is presented that seeks to understand the tactics people use to manage cell-sharing, influences on their choice of tactics and the potential repercussions of these tactics. Potential implications for policy and practice are also discussed.

The myth that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice persists, despite a long history of rhetorical challenges. Only empirical evidence can advance the debate, so this article investigates the relationship between punishment and victim–offender communication from the victim’s perspective. Interviews with 40 victims of crime established that some victims saw victim–offender communication and punishment as alternatives, and others saw them as independent. However, more than half the participants expected that communicating with the offender would increase their satisfaction with the offender’s punishment or reported afterwards that this was in fact the case, suggesting that some victims fulfil punishment objectives through communication with the offender. The changes occurred when victims received information about the offender’s punishment, received feedback from the offender or used communication with the offender to impose a mild punishment of their own. Victims were not excessively punitive, but this study demonstrates the existence of an association between punishment and victim–offender communication from at least some victims’ perspectives. This article argues that we should not ignore or attempt to eliminate this relationship. Rather, acknowledging and examining the existence of punishment within victim–offender communication would improve practice and generate better outcomes for victims, offenders and society.

In the last decades, western countries have developed a set of policies and practices aimed both at crime prevention and social reassurance. Within this trend, the old-fashioned sanction of banishment has regained prominence. Banning orders, in particular, are widely used to remove from public spaces individuals who are deemed a threat to public safety and urban decorum. This article investigates the use of banning orders towards foreign defendants without a valid residence permit in an Italian criminal court. Based on empirical material collected during a one-year period of courtroom ethnography in Turin, this article sheds light on the rationales and objectives behind the use of banning orders. The interviews with courtroom actors reveal how banning orders have lost much of their preventive dimension to become an instrument of socio-urban control towards immigrants. This article invites future research to consider the role that urban management practices might play in the field of global mobility.