Academic literature on the topic 'Penal welfarism'

This article explores principles of penal welfarism. For a number of years, there has been a wide-ranging debate on the impact of penal welfarism and on its transformation or indeed its possible supersedence. To date, however, discussions have rarely started with those directly affected (‘from below’) and asked how welfarist measures are experienced and perceived by young people who have been charged with or convicted of offences. This is the approach taken here as I focus on young defendants in the context of their trial. The young people describe in detail problematic life stories and personal challenges. However, the majority reject any attempt to label them as cases for education or rehabilitation. Help in the respondents’ view should primarily resolve specific, pragmatic problems, and not interfere with their identity.

In this article I address the question of whether there has been a punitive turn in Swedish crime policy or not. Since the punitive turn is connected to the downfall of the rehabilitative ideal, and to what David Garland has termed penal welfarism, I make my argument with reference to these phenomena in Sweden. I claim that there were two rationales behind the penal welfare state and the rehabilitative ideal in Sweden: a social liberal rationale built on paternalism and interventionism, and a social democratic rationale built on Marxist class analysis. My argument is that while penal welfarism is still operating in Sweden, the social liberal rationale has been discarded. This means that the social democratic rationale built on Marxist class analysis is now the single dominating force behind Swedish penal welfarism. The argument for a punitive turn in Sweden therefore has no support.

AbstractThis article presents the early decades of Norwegian forensic psychiatry as a basis for exploring David Garland’s term «penal welfarism». While Garland focuses primarily upon penalties and prisons, I find it relevant to look at a type of sanction not officially defined as punishment according to Norwegian law. Insanity has provided exemption from criminal punishment in Norway since 1842. Yet criminals considered dangerous to themselves or others have been housed in criminal asylums since 1895, which is the same year Garland argues that a transformation in penal strategies occurred in Britain (Garland, 1985).

AbstractCooperation between authorities is a central part of present-day crime prevention in Sweden. At the same time, the idea of cooperation has an extensive heritage within Swedish welfare policy. The purpose of this article is to trace the trajectory of crime prevention and in particular the idea of cooperation as a crime policy solution. Dating back to the post-war decades, cooperation between authorities in an effort to tackle youth crime has also been in line with David Garland’s concept of penal welfarism. While Garland mainly focuses on penal institutions and penal law rather than prevention, cooperation in Sweden shares several characteristics with penal welfarism such as the optimistic belief in expert rule and individualized treatment. The professional expertise that colonized the field of criminal justice was an equally prominent feature of how schools would prevent crime. Against this background I also discuss whether or not the concept of the preventive turn is applicable to the trajectory of crime prevention in Sweden. My conclusion is that the development of crime prevention is best understood as a continuous process dating back to the post-war era’s focus on youth crime, as opposed to a break.

Abstract SwedishUnder efterkrigstiden förändrades många västerländska länders kriminalpolitik i riktning mot välfärd och rehabilitering. Detta ideal fokuserade gärningsmannen, inte brottsoffret. Detta skulle snart komma att förändras. En av de första initiativ som togs för brottsoffer var brottsskadeersättning, en ekonomisk kompensation som infördes på 1960-talet. Denna artikel jämför utvecklingen av brottsskadeersättningi två länder, USA och Sverige, i relation till deras välfärds- och kriminalpolitik. Båda länderna initierade kompensationsreformer för brottsoffer ivälfärdsinstitutionella kontexter. Med stöd i en jämförande historisk fallstudiemetod visar artikeln dock att kompensationsreformerna i de två länderna skilde sig åt och kom att avspegla respektive lands välfärds- och kriminalpolitik. De första svenska kompensationsreformerna förankrades som en socialförsäkringsfråga, medan deras motsvarigheter i USA snabbt banade väg för mer straffinriktade program.Abstract EnglishIn the post-war period, many Westernized countries advanced toward more rehabilitative and welfarist ideals informing crime policies. These ideals centered on the offending individual, not the victim. This was soon to change. Victim compensation programs were one of the first initiatives taken for victims of crime with the first established in the 1960s. This paper examines and compares the development of victim compensation programs in two countries with contrasting social welfare and penal policies, the United States and Sweden. Both countries developed victim compensation programs located within welfarist administrative institutions, suggesting common penal welfare frameworks and instruments. Using the comparative historical case study method, the study finds that formative victim compensation policies in the two countries differed widely, reflecting social welfare versus remedial welfare policies, and rehabilitative versus punitive carceral frameworks, respectively. Arguments upholding penal welfarist ideals and social insurance concerns underlay the early formation of Sweden’s victim compensation program and anchored subsequent developments while, in the United States, political conditions led to a rapid trajectory in more punitive directions.

With the consolidation of a cosmopolitan field of international criminal justice, penality has ‘gone global’. In spite of the abundance of doctrinal legal analysis, human rights studies, and transitional justice studies, there are few analytic attempts to engage with the working assumptions, cultural commitments, and dominant mentalities that give shape to international criminal justice as a penal field. Based on ethnographic observations, interviews with key actors, and critical reading of international criminal justice scholarship, this article compares the cosmopolitan penality of international criminal justice to that of late modern, domestic, penality. Using David Garland’s The Culture of Control as an analytic yardstick, it argues that international criminal justice both resembles and departs from ‘the national’. For example, whilst the cosmopolitan penality relies upon retributive justifications, it makes no appeal to harsh penal sanctions; nor is it concerned with the rehabilitation of prisoners. Rather, it is an expressive and humanitarian form of justice where the victim takes central stage – as the embodiment of a suffering humanity. Moreover, there is a remarkable faith in the transformative effects of international criminal justice, resembling a form of penal welfarism ‘gone global’. As national capacity building and penal development has become intrinsic to the project of international criminal justice, the article shows how the global dimension of the power to punish is based on a moralization of politics.

Fieldwork in the inner-Sydney postcode area of Glebe (New South Wales, Australia) sought to understand how local community workers conceptualise crime causation and the approaches adopted to prevent crime. Observation of more than 30 inter-agency meetings, 15 interviews and two focus groups with diverse local workers revealed that social-welfare or ‘root’ causes of crime were central to explanations of local crime. Numerous crime prevention measures in the area respond directly to these understandings of crime (a youth diversion program on Friday and Saturday evenings, an alternative education program, a police-youth exercise program, and so on). While other more surveillant forms of crime prevention were evident, the findings of this research suggest a significant social-welfare orientation to crime prevention. These findings echo Brown’s (2012) observations of the resilience of penal-welfarism in Australia.

In this Review Essay, I try to rise to one of the challenges that Goodman, Page, and Phelps pose to other scholars in their book, Breaking the Pendulum (2017). They invite us to explore whether and how well their “agonistic perspective” on penal change travels. In response, I draw on original archival and oral history research on probation history in Scotland to explore their model’s utility in the context of this particular and challenging test case. Although Scotland is often discussed as an anomaly because of a supposed consensus around an enduring commitment to penal welfarism, my analysis reveals precisely the kinds of contestation that Goodman, Page, and Phelps describe. I conclude that their agonistic perspective seems to travel well, at least to this Atlantic edge of Europe, but that scholars in other jurisdictions will need either to undertake or revisit primary research to properly test the model and further refine it.

A tese investiga o apoio a egressos do sistema penitenciário no Brasil, a partir do estudo das produções legislativas, das políticas públicas e da criação de programas de apoio, surgidos no país, a partir da década de 1990. Seu foco principal de análise recai sobre a atuação e o papel dos programas de apoio nas trajetórias de vida de egressos. Para tanto, realizamos um levantamento das iniciativas nacionais, pesquisa em profundidade em programas públicos (Agentes da Liberdade, no Rio de Janeiro-RJ e Programa de Acompanhamento Social, em Porto Alegre-RS) e da sociedade civil (FAESP em Porto Alegre-RS e Pró-Egresso em Maringá-PR) e uma análise das trajetórias de vida e do impacto do apoio na visão dos egressos. A metodologia de pesquisa incluiu analise legislativa, de políticas públicas, visita aos programas com realização de pesquisas documental e entrevistas. O referencial teórico foi constituído por abordagens de políticas públicas, sociais e penais - Delmas-Marty (2004), Adorno (1991), Souza (2007); trajetórias de vida, capital social, esperanças e oportunidades - Bourdieu (1980, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005); impactos do aprisionamento: disciplinamento, prisionização e estigma - Foucault (1996a, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2003), Baratta (1999), Goffman (1988); e inclusão/exclusão - redes sociais, religião e trabalho - Xiberras (1996), Barnes(1987), Quiroga (2005), Castel (2001). Nosso estudo parte da análise sobre a inserção, no Brasil, dos modelos de welfarismo penal - política criminal vigente nos países centrais na época dos Estados de Bem-Estar Social - e de Estado penal - política criminal surgida com a crise deste modelo estatal. Os programas de apoio investigados em profundidade revelam-se, à luz das teorias das políticas públicas e sociais, espaços de mediação para pequenas conquistas: acesso à cidadania formal, acesso aos meios de sobrevivência, como alimentação, transporte e vestuário, e à saúde. Em menor escala, as iniciativas permitem a inserção educacional e no trabalho, a partir de escassas e precárias, mas importantes concessões. Com relação aos egressos, suas trajetórias de vida revelam a existência de baixos níveis de capital econômico e cultural, responsáveis, na busca de sobrevivência, dinheiro fácil, aventura ou por fatalidade, pelo ingresso na criminalidade. Marcados pela experiência prisional e suas conseqüências, como a prisionização e o estigma, os egressos têm nos programas de apoio um local de construção de sociabilidade e de visibilidade. Neste aspecto, outros elementos são responsáveis por ampliar as esperanças e oportunidades dos egressos, como a formação de redes, a conversão religiosa e o acesso ao trabalho. Por fim, a passagem por programas de apoio implica em ganhos e frustrações. A temporariedade da condição de egresso, somada à temporariedade das próprias iniciativas, embora não permita inclusões sociais em sentido pleno, resulta em manutenções longe do crime e na redução do peso da condição de homens infames.
The present paper aims at studying the support granted to ex-convicts of the Brazilian penitentiary system based on legislative productions, public policies and programs from the 90´s onwards. It focuses mainly on the performance and role of support programs in relation to the life trajectory of ex-convicts. In order to accomplish such goal, national initiatives, public (Agentes da Liberdade, Rio de Janeiro, RJ and Programa de Acompanhamento Social, Porto Alegre, RS) and civil society programs (FAESP, Porto Alegre, RS, and Pro-Egresso, Maringá, Paraná) were deeply researched. Also, the life trajectory and the impact of support programs were analyzed from the viewpoint of ex-convicts. The research methodology comprised legislative and public policy analysis, and visits to programs so as to research documents and conduct interviews. The theoretical referential was based on public, social and criminal policies - Delmas-Marty (2004), Adorno (1991), Souza (2007); trajectories of life, social capital, hopes and opportunities - Bourdieu (1980, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005); imprisonment impacts: discipline, prisionization and stigma - Foucault (1996, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2003), Baratta (1999), Goffman (1988); and inclusion/exclusion - social networks, religion and work - Xiberras (1996), Barnes(1987), Quiroga (2005), Castel (1999). This study also highlights the insertion of the Penal Welfarism model in Brazil, which was the criminal policy adopted by the central countries at the time of the Welfare State and the Penal Sate - such criminal policy rose during the crisis of the Welfare State model. In the light of public and social theories, the support programs examined showed mediation spaces to the rising of small victories: access to formal citizenship, food, means of transportation, clothing and health. Although in a smaller scale, the initiatives also granted educational and work insertion. Notwithstanding, the life trajectories of ex-convicts reveal the existence of low economic and cultural capital levels which, in the struggle for survival, may lead to crime. Once entering the prison system and experiencing its consequences such as prisioning and stigma, the ex-convicts rely on the support programs to help rebuild their sociability and visibility. Moreover, there are other elements responsible for broadening the hope and opportunities of such people, for instance, the formation of social networks, religious conversion and work access. On the other hand, attending a support program involves victories and frustrations. Furthermore, the stigma of being an ex-convict and the temporality of initiatives might not bring full social inclusion, but they certainly help keep these people from committing crimes and help lessen the stigma of infamous men.

After summarizing Fassin’s arguments, McLennan urges attention to five related questions. The first addresses the intersection between philosophy and the social sciences, specifically how, if at all, utilitarian, Kantian, and other ideal theories of punishment might usefully inform the study of past and present penal practices. Second, McLennan asks what in American history explains the particular brutality of state punishment in the U.S.—what she calls “delegated sadism”—notwithstanding many common features between French and American penal institutions. Building on this theme, she invites Fassin to reflect more on the nonlinearity of the history of penal policy in the U.S. and the ways in which penal welfarism and the slave plantation provided competing models for punishment in both North and South. Responding to Fassin’s call for the study of “penal theology,” McLennan suggests that nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christian theologies have not only fostered certain penal practices but generated radical critiques of incarceration and its effects. Finally, turning to mass incarceration’s more recent history, McLennan calls our attention to the gendered character of penal policy, especially in light of the fact that incarceration rates for women have risen much faster than for men.

This essay provides a synthesis of criminological and social welfare theoretical frameworks, along with empirical data illuminating the links between crime policy and welfare policy. It also reviews current debates regarding the extent to which European countries are undergoing a shift toward more punitive welfare or crime policies. Building upon Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s classic typology of welfare regimes, current scholarship ties liberal welfare regimes to punitive penal ideologies and high rates of incarceration and social democratic welfare regimes to lenient attitudes toward punishment and low incarceration rates. Research also underscores the significance of economic and social inequality in the production and outcomes of crime and welfare policies. Comparative empirical data supports the persistence of penal-welfarism in Europe, particularly in social democratic states, exemplified by Sweden, while indicating more punitive policies targeting marginalized sectors of the population, notably immigrants.

This chapter examines the complex relationship between ‘punishment’ and ‘welfare.’ It traces the various ways in which penal systems are influenced by, and interact with, broader systems of social welfare and how these linked institutions function as modes of social control and class control. Following a critical review of the historical and comparative literature—and associated questions of data and method—it discusses how penal and welfare policies relate to the social problems they purport to address and to the political and socio-economic structures within which they operate. ‘Penal-welfarist’ and ‘welfarist’ practices are defined and differentiated, some common elements of practices of punishing and assisting are identified, and the fundamentals of ‘the welfare state’ and its recent neoliberal history are explained.

The third chapter moves on to examine the period 1860-84, looking at the impact of the developing statutory system and its central features. Underpinning the whole analysis is examination of cases illustrating the way the system was applied in practice. It demonstrates the unforeseen consequences of this legislative and centralising process: in essence, the distinctiveness of the Scottish day industrial school system was sacrificed, its original welfarist principles undermined as it became aligned to the British system regulating certified residential industrial and reformatory schools of a penal character. The chapter also covers efforts to restore the original elements of the project and the calls for reappraisal, culminating in Watson’s final, poignant public appearance when he passionately denounced the statutory system.