NCJ Number
209547
Journal
Criminal Justice Ethics Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: Summer/Fall 2004 Pages: 25-38
Date Published
2004
Length
14 pages
Annotation
In this article, the author addresses and examines arguments developed by two researchers and their conceptualization of crime which states that punishable wrongs are shared by the community and the victim, thereby subordinating the victim.
Abstract
An account of punishment must recognize punishment’s role in maintaining something like a community. The logic of this says there is the need to remember that the criminal should be one of us. Known authors, Antony Duff and Sandra Marshall argue along these lines with their developed theory that punishable wrongs are shared by the community and the victim. However, this article argues that actual communities are not marked simply by agreement and shared views, and that members of actual communities disagree and interpret their shared life differently and act differently on that basis. The author argues that you cannot assume that there will be widespread agreement on what it means to be one of us. It is argued that based on Duff and Marshall’s conceptualization of the nature of crime and the nature of punishment and reintegration, a significant subordination is allowed to go unnoticed and unjustified. The author begins by describing the role of interpretation of the wrong done, when fitting a punishment to the crime or wrong done. Duff and Marshall’s theory that requires atypical members’ interpretations of crimes to become subordinate even when they are victims of crime is explored. The author recommends some straightforward revisions of Duff and Marshall’s penal process by reconceptualizing crime as a violation of an individual in relation, rather than of a community with a shared set of defining values. The reasoning behind this is that, even if we share an interpretation of crimes, we may understand the situation differently. The criminal justice system must proceed with atypical members in mind and seek to minimize their subordination. 28 Notes