Academic literature on the topic 'Punishments without incarceration'

Abstract Several of the possible reforms we have noted concern changes to the criminal-justice system. Specifically, we said in chapter 2 that shifting the burden of persuasion is a more rational way to prevent potential abuse than the existing deviating doctrines that are justified by the abuse concern — yet the Supreme Court’s constitutional case law appears to limit the ability of a jurisdiction to pursue this option. Similarly, in chapter 6, we pointed out that a more detailed verdict system would avoid the need for some deviating doctrines and might mitigate the moral credibility damage caused by others—yet Anglo-American criminal law has traditionally forbidden almost anything but a general verdict. We also argued, in chapter 7, that the current system of incarceration could be replaced with a more nuanced system that would allow, and even facilitate, use of various non incarcerative methods of punishment. In this chapter, we offer a more thorough discussion of these proposals.

Abstract This chapter traces the experiences and examines the appeals of formerly enslaved men imprisoned by the US Army for desertion or absence without leave. If convicted in the courts-martial, US Army soldiers ended up in prisons around the wartime South, often in the same prisons as Confederates captured in battle. From these prisons, US Army convicts penned letters appealing for release. Incarcerated formerly enslaved men joined this effort. They wrote petitions requesting release, pointing to the contributions they could make to the war and to the Reconstruction of the wartime South. Some said they needed to return home to help their families or that they ran from unfair officers. They also argued that their actions should not be punished, contending that their flight was appropriate. In making these claims, the soldiers contested incarceration as a legitimate punishment and demanded that the state respect their contributions to the war to save the Union.

In this chapter, Jonathan Simon argues that the modern criminal system should adopt the value of dignity as its governing ideal. The chapter argues that the legality principle—once a primary engine for strengthening the criminal system’s democratic legitimacy—has exhausted its sociological and jurisprudential power. Surveying 150 years of criminal legal commitments, this chapter shows how the legality principle rose to prominence as a vehicle for reform and accountability, and then fell under pressure from mass incarceration and institutional racism. Accordingly, the legality principle should be supplemented with a dignity principle, “an increasingly prominent value in legal systems internationally since the middle of the 20th century.” Simon traces the development of various forms of dignity in Supreme Court jurisprudence, from police procedure to prison conditions, determinate sentencing, and mental health. The chapter concludes that “the great banner reading ‘nulla poena sine lege’ must now be, not lowered, but joined by another banner of ‘no crime and no punishment without respect for human dignity.’”

Title: The Myth of “Prison Pain”. Summary: The pain of punishment and imprisonment has been widely discussed in prison research. In line with established penal/criminal theory and politics, imposing punishment within the institution of law means inflicting pain. The sociology of imprisonment literature has traditionally focused rather narrowly on the pains of imprisonment; on the “weight, depth and tightness” experienced by prisoners. Empirically-grounded comparative analysis of prisoners’ own views on important contributing factors to strengthening their quality of life in prison and their decision to abstain from future crime and drugs is scarce. In the 21st century, Norwegian criminal justice policy has shifted towards an increasing emphasis on human rights discourses and rehabilitation policies. The “principle of normalization” is a humanist hallmark of the Norwegian prison systems, implying prisoners’ equal access to the welfare rights shared by all Norwegian citizens. During the incarceration period, prisoners’ rights to satisfactory accommodation, education or training, employment, health and social services, and financial advice, seek to create the best possible conditions for an offender’s re-integration into society after release. Despite such constructive changes within correctional services, the question remains how such changes have altered the prison experience and softened the pains of imprisonment. Based on comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data on life before, during and after imprisonment, this article presents a more nuanced picture of the varying Norwegian correctional institution standards. With the help of ex-criminals’ and inmates’ present and past experiences, the article contributes to an understanding of how the different prison-condition qualities that prisoners are exposed to can contribute to constructive change. By addressing the prisoners’ own reflections on their feelings, pain, pleasures, gains and losses regarding today’s penal practice, the article wishes to contribute to a constructive debate on what current and former prisoners value as supportive and fair, and what they perceive to be offensive and unfair. We cannot, the article argues, assume that punishment is always, and in each case, perceived as pain without further investigation of how punishment is actually experienced and how it varies. The comparative approach - how prisoners perceive and experience the varying conditions they are subjected to in prison, and how they deal with it - must be a core concern in the study of captive society. Accordingly, theories of punishment and painfulness must reflect the recent years’ changes evident within both penal practice and policies.