NCJ Number
216435
Journal
Punishment & Society Volume: 8 Issue: 4 Dated: October 2006 Pages: 443-467
Date Published
October 2006
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This article will argue that catastrophic approaches in criminology tend to overplay the consistency of modern punishment.
Abstract
The purpose of this article has been to suggest that things are more complicated than some would seem to suggest. The point has been to caution approaches that see the current state of affairs in criminology as completely new, and as catastrophically different from modern rehabilitation. Rather, punishment and reform can be seen as always mixing together variously in modern liberal penality. Even if there seems to be an overall expansion of punitiveness and a retraction of correctionalism in some jurisdictions, it is important not to confuse jurisdictional trends with global ones, or to ignore counter-currents to what is perceived or misperceived as an unstoppable wave of control. This article attempts to pull out the continuities as well as the interruptions understood in a number of new and innovative approaches to crime and punishment; approaches which are neglected by catastrophic theories precisely because they are similar to what are considered more modern and displaced forms of punishment. This article argues that punishment and reform have always melded together. It argues that accounts that foresee a break in penality tend to overplay the consistency of modern punishment and underplay the inconsistency of current developments. References