Cultures of Irresponsibility (original) (raw)
Related papers
Stagnation and Change in Irish Penal Policy
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 2008
Anyone with even a cursory interest in the prison system of the Republic of Ireland will be struck by how quickly one arrives at the frontiers of knowledge. Getting the measure of penal policy issues is not so much a question of weighing up competing claims for understanding and sifting the accumulated evidence, as attempting to paint a crude, and hopefully not too distorted, picture of a landscape that is mostly in shadows. Where there is a measure of illumination it is often dim. Notwithstanding the lack of baseline information, the government has embarked on a programme of prison expansion. Interestingly, while the total number behind bars has grown, the population of sentenced prisoners has changed little, a fact that has gone largely unnoticed despite its implications for penal planning.
The academic literature on criminology in Ireland is not as well developed in comparison with that of Europe. However, there is now a steadily developing corpus of work on many areas of Irish criminal justice policy from an increasing number of academics. Nonetheless, an in-depth analysis of the development of Irish prison policy, as presented by Rogan in Prison policy in Ireland, has never been previously attempted. The book deals primarily with the adult male prison population and policies.
While sociologists of punishment have been interested in the notion of Nordic penal exceptionalism, rapid changes are taking place in the penal policies of one of the members of the Nordic zone. Norway's penal state is growing increasingly punitive, and penal exceptionalism appears to be on the wane, evidenced by a growing incarceration rate, increasingly punitive sentiments in the population, moral panics over street crime, raised sentencing levels, the forcible detention and extradition of asylum seekers, punitive drug policies, and the creation of segregated correctional facilities for stigmatized foreign offenders. Penal transformation should be understood as the outcome of symbolic contestation between politicians eager to present themselves as ''tough on crime,'' increasing differentiation of the social structure that has led to the declining fortunes of rehabilitationism, and a nascent neoliberalization of the welfare state. As a consequence, Europe's penal landscape may be growing more homogeneous.
Penal Populations in a World in Motion: The Case of the Republic of Ireland (ROI)
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 2011
Abstract: It has been contended that the hyper-criminalisation of immigrants and especially non-European Union (non-EU) immigrants explains the increased presence of foreign nationals in European prisons. A more nuanced explanation for the changed composition of European prison populations is offered by this article. Structural factors may result in immigrants having a greater risk of criminalisation than has the native population, but the presence of foreign nationals in European prisons must also be understood as a product of changes in patterns of criminal activity and increased mobility. The article uses the case of the Republic of Ireland (ROI) to probe the reasons behind the reported presence of foreign nationals in European prisons.
Exploring Norwegian Sentencing and Corrections as a Foundation for Comparative Policy Analysis
Federal Sentencing Reporter, 2018
Norwegian justice is often regarded as an ideal blend of fair punishment, humane (if not well-appointed) prisons, and effective rehabilitation. What can Americans interested in sentencing and correctional policy learn from their Norwegian counterparts? At first glance, the answer may seem obvious: nothing. There are just too many differences. While this simple (and dispiriting) conclusion may seem inevitable at first, it obfuscates a much more nuanced (and optimistic) answer. There are certainly stark differences between the United States and Norway. Some are basic differences in scale: Norway is roughly the size of New Mexico (approximately 125,000 square miles), with a slightly smaller population than Minnesota. While the population of Norway (5.3 million as of January 1, 2018) 1 is dwarfed by that of the United States (327.0 million as of the same date), 2 Norway has far more reindeer per capita. Within the respective justice systems, these differences are only magnified. Crime rates in the United States-those of violent and gun-related crimes in particular-far exceed those in Norway (and, to be fair, most of the developed world). 3 Recidivism rates in the United States are significantly higher than those in Norway, especially when taking the numbers produced in Scandinavia at face value. 4 Unsurprisingly, this translates into a smaller and less violent prison population in Norway compared to the United States. Other differences are both foundational and cultural: the social democratic model of government-the welfare state that characterizes the Scandinavian countries-greatly influences a correctional system in which the reentry process begins much earlier than in the United States; the impact of a conviction on rights and services in U.S. jurisdictions far exceeds that in Norway; and per capita correctional expenditures in Norway are markedly higher. These are certainly salient differences. Sentencing and corrections are ultimately defined by the interaction between the individual offender and the state. Stripping away the furniture (and workshops and kitchens and televisions of many Norwegian facilities), a prison is designed to incapacitate, and a judge must decide on an appropriate sentence for a given defendant-the core functionality remains the same, irrespective of the continent on which the prison is located. Variation in these policies is a source of opportunity. Regardless of whether the differences are driven by philosophy or by the availability of resources, aspects of the Norwegian criminal justice system can serve as an inspiration for U.S. domestic reform. Even where Nordic policies cannot (or should not) be imported as a whole, aspects-perhaps reflective of a pragmatism or philosophical orientation that represents a goal in the United States, rather than the current reality-can be illustrative. Rather than fixating on the glaring differences between these systems and looking away, we suggest looking closer. The goal of this issue of FSR is to provide a broad, albeit incomplete, foundation for an iterative exchange of practical and policy information. While much as been written about Scandinavian 5 penal exceptionalism from a philosophical standpoint, 6 much less effort has been devoted to exploring the pragmatic differences in sentencing and punishment. Some have argued that comparative criminal justice (sentencing and penology) has hit a bit of a nadir, 7 with many narratives drawing generalized
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2014
This article provides an overview of the literature leading comparative penological research. Starting from the concept of "punitiveness" as measured in imprisonment rates, it explores and critically assesses how differences in prison populations, and changes over time, have been explained by comparative criminologists. In doing so, it identifies drivers of contemporary penal policies on a global, national, and regional scale. It does, however, also pay particular attention to anomalies, deviating patterns, and overrepresented groups and discusses the validity of the explanatory models in this respect. Finally, it looks at the future of penal policy and prospects for penal reform.