The politics of redress: crime, punishment, and penal abolition

109 Pages·1990·5.97 MB·English

by  Willem de Haan

© W. de Haan 1990
This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No
reproduction without permission. All rights reserved.
Published by the Academic Division of
Unwin Hyman Ltd Mother was right
15/17 Broadwick Street, London WIV IFP, UK
Unwin Hyman Inc.,
8 Winchester Place, Winchester, Mass. 01890, USA
Allen & Unwin (New Zealand) Ltd in association with the
Port Nicholson Press Ltd,
Compusales Building, 75 Ghuznee Street, Wellingtotcj, New^aland
First published in 1990
British Library Cataloging in Publication Data
Haan, Willem de
The politics of redress: crime, punishment and
penal abolition.
1. Great Britain. Crime and punishment
I. Title
364’.94I
ISBN 0-04-445441'4
ISBN 0-04-445442-2 (pbk.)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Haan, Willem de.
“>‘i l»nal aboUHon /
P- cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-04-445441-4
ISBN 0-04-445442-2 (pbk.)
3. Correction,-
HV8675.H3 1990
364.6—dc20
89-22526
CIP
Typeset in 10/^11.5 Goudy and printed in Great
Britain by
Billing & Sons Ltd, Worcester
msai
Contents
Preface by Stanley Cohen page xiii
Acknowledgements ' xv
1 Introduction:
The ‘crisis’ in critical criminology 1
2 Fuzzy morals and flaky politics:
The coming out of critical criminology 17
3 Explaining expansion:
The politics of punishment 36
4 Explaining Contraction:
The politics of ‘bad conscience’ 64
5 Penal abolition and sociological imagination:
The transferability debate 82
6 The necessity of punishment in a just social order:
The justice debate 102
7 Institutionalization of socialist legality:
Popular justice in Cuba 130
8 Conclusion:
Towards a politics of redress 150
Notes 169
References 187
Index 203
if criminology were to dispense with philosophical foundations
it would cause its own euthanasia’ (Bianchi, 1956, p.4).
Preface
Of all the many branches of the social sciences, criminology is simul­
taneously the richest and the most marginalized. ‘Richest’, because
any serious consideration of why 4>eople break laws, and what society
chooses to do about these people, touches every dihiension of social
life - gender, class, power - and every moral principle; guilt, justice,
responsibility. ‘Marginalized’, because despite the richness, the internal
discourse of criminology remains completely hidden from the wider
intellectual culture. The same intellectuals today who,assume a familiarity
with much more arcane debates in, say, psychoanalysis ot literary theory
would be ignorant of the different streams of thought that Willem de
Hagn review^ - such as left realism, abolitionism, or neo-classicism.
The reasons for this marginalization lie, of course, in the special
circumstances of criminology’s history. It was surely the prototype, the
best ease for Foucault’s theory of the emergence of the social sciences in
general: the production of knowledge to justify the exercise of ppwer. If
penal power was to be deployed on the margins of social space f behind
prison walls) against those from the margins of society (the ‘criminal types’
of positivism), then, surely, the science which talked about all this was
also of marginal interest.
This was precisely where the Great Refusal of the 1960s (culminating
in Foucault’s own work) was directed. Grime and its punishment,.deviance
and its control, were tp be placed in the centre of the political stage. In
the movements known variously as- ‘critical’, ‘new’, ‘radical’, ‘counter’,
QT ‘anti’ criminology, all the taken-for^granted features of the. discipline’s
nineteenth-century heritage were deconstructed. This implied npt just
a new theoretical vision (of the concept of crime, of the image of the
criminal) and a new set of policy preferences, but a very different idea
of the role of the criminologist: no longer a combined state technician
and police agent, but either (and sometimes at the same time!) detached
observer of society and committed fighter for social justice.
The subsequent twenty years have seen a series of convoluted variations
on the original project of critical criminology. In response to actual
changes in the political economy and ideological moves ranging from
the new conservatism to radical feminism, some of the original counter­
positions have been modified, some affirmed, yet others abandoned. In
each of the scattered citadels of the new movement (in Britain, Wekem
Europe and North America) different questions are raised and even
different sub-schools - particularly abolitionism and Left realism - have
xiv The Politics of Redress
been set up. Each' one claims (depending on its audience) fidelity to the
Acknowledgements
original project or honest intellectual revision in the face of ‘reality’.
Willem de Haan’s book is both a product of and commentary on
these developments. He does not pretend to provide the outsider with
an archaeological guide to this period, but rather abstracts a number of
The following chapters include material which has originally been pub­
central issues which have kept recurring or (alternatively) have kept being
lished as follows: Chapter 2 in Journal of Law and Society vol. 14, no. 1,
ignored. He selects out the moral and political dimensions of crime and,
1987; Chapter 4 in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice vol. 26, no. 1,
iil^particular, punishment. The old criminology addressed the punishment
1987; Chapter 6 in International Journal of the Sociology of Law, vol. 16, no.
question in three contexts: the technical (how to punish more efficiently);
4, 1988.
the moral (how to justify this punishment) and the very narrowly political
The author wishes to thank the editors and publishers for their kind
(the ‘conservative’ versus ‘liberal’ positions in such debates as ‘punishment
permission to include these materials in this book. Chapters 4 and 5
versus rehabilitation’). The new criminology bypassed much of this -
were initially presented as a paper to the Second and Third International
either by moving towards relativism or by trying to construct a wholly
Conferences on Prison Abolition in Amsterdam in 1985 and Montreal in
new political and theoretical agenda. Then for abolitionists, punishments
1987. Chapters 2, 3, 6 and 7 were first presented as a paper to Annual
had to be undermined and alternatives constructed.
Conferences of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social
De Haan repeatedly shows the continuing relevance of these debates -
(Dontrol in Madrid in 1986, Hamburg in 1985, Vienna in 1987, Louvain
their refusal to disappear. Moreover, he discusses them not just in abstract
in 1980. I wish to express my gratitude to all those collegues and friends
but by giving concrete details of penal policy in his own particular society.
who either are, or are not but should become, members of the European
That this society is the Netherlands - with its long reputation for benign
Group - for their practical help, their stimulation and helpful criticisms.
perial'policy as measured by the lowest rates of imprisonment in Western
I wish to thank in particular those who have kept me going by inviting me
democracies ' makes his discussion (in Chapters 3 and 4) all the more
to talk, teach, or publish; Rick Abel, Nils Christie, Stan Cohen, Johannes
iriteresting. *
Feest, Phil Thomas, Carola and Karl Schumann. I also thank Constantijn
Wherever de Haan arrives along this theoretical route, he remains
Kelk for his gentle supervision, as well as Riekent Jongman, Paul Moedikdo,
faithful to the spirit of critical criminology’s endeavour to dissolve itself
Toon Peters and Derek Phillips for their reading and commenting on the
into the wider social sciences. Thoughts about the transferability of
manuscript. 1 am very grateful to Stan Cohen for his writing a preface
mechanisms of conflict resolution from one society to another (Chapter
to this book, a book which I see as a modest attempt to implement a
5), the conditions of a just social order (Chapter 6), or socialist legality
research agenda first set out by him. Thanks go to the board members of
in Cuba (Chapter 7) are not mere self-indulgent detours from the main
the Coomhert League for Penal Reform for their encouragement and for
business of criminology. They are further rounds in the old battle against
keeping me in touch with the good, the bad and the ugly. Special thanks
marginalization. And they use the best tactics: to move ‘down’ from the
to Peter Bal, Frank van der Hoek, Phil Thomas and Penny Smith for their
grand questions of social &nd political theo^ to the banal question of crime
friendship, superb coaching and offering a ‘head boy’ a home. Finally, I
and punishment - and theri ‘up’ again from the banal to the grand.
wish to express my gratitude to Kathy Davis for her immense practical help,
profound criticism - scholarly and otherwise - and persistant compassion
Stanley Cohen
with a wayward scholar like me. Although she refused to talk with me in
January, 1989
English, she did suggest that I write it and showed me how to do so. She
has won so many brownie pwints on this one that I may be never able to
repay them - though I would love spending a few more years trying.
Amsterdam, December 1988.
1
Introduction: The ‘crisis’ in
critical criminology
This book is about the politics of crime, punishment and penal reform,
or, as I will be calling it, the politics of ‘redress’. As penal abolition will
be a major topic of the book, I will not be confining .myself to negative
reactions to criminality, nor to the traditional theories of punishment
which are usually put forth to justify punitive reactions. The significance
of punishment goes beyond the familiar aspects of crime control and due
process. As an institution, punishment affects the quality of our social
relationships - public and private - and, in doing so, the overall quality
of life in society as well. Rather than as a simple response to crime, we
need to take a wider view conceiving of punishment. When talking about
punishment, ‘the whole of the penal complex, including its sanctions,
institutions, discourses and representations’ (Garland, 1985, p. x) should
be taken into account. Moreover, we would do well to consider other
non-penal sanctions as possible ways of dealing rationally with offences.
Punishment cannot, therefore, be discussed in isolation from social and
political theory and praxis. To this end, the notion of ‘redress^ will be
put forward as a useful concept for developing a progressive politics of
crime and punishment - a politics which is not only more, convincing,
but also more just.
In subsequent chapters, a variety of issues related to punishment will be
tackled, ranging from a comparative analysis of penal policies in different
countries to a discussion concerning the question of whether ‘punishment’
is at all compatible with a just social order. Taking the current ‘crisis’ in
what has come to be known as ‘new’, ‘radical’, or ‘critical’ criminology’
(Taylor, Walton and Young, 1973; 1975) as a starting point, the book
has been assembled a Tit like a sandwich. Chapters 1 and 8 are the
slices of bread containing the meat and trimmings of chapters 2 to
7. These chapters deal with different aspects of the politics of crime,
I, punishment and penal reform. They were written during the past few
years in the context of the ongoing debates within critical criminology.
2 The Politics of Redress
Introduction 3
They are not comprehensive in any systematic sense, nor do they pretend
will show that normative theorizing within liberal moral philosophy and
to present a truthful historical account of these debates. What they have
political theory do not, in fact, provide us with ready-made building blocks
in common is that they are both a product of and, I hope, a contribution
for grounding-a theory and praxis of crime, punishment and penal reform
to the discussions within critical criminology. They are not presented in
in a way which is both convincing and just. In other words, even though
the chronological order of their production, but rather as representing
I urge critical criminology to draw on social theory and moral philosophy,
different aspects of the politics of crime and punishment. Some of them
I do not, by any means, think that just any theory will do. What critical
will be discussed at a theoretical, others at an empirical level. At the
criminology needs is critical social theory and philosophy. As this kind
empirical level, I will try to draw some lessons from the failures and the
of theorizing is still in the developmental stages, it will be up to critical
successes of previous efforts to reform the penal system. At a theoretical
criminology to make connections with its own substantive concerns.
level, an attempt will be made to recast the terms of the debate, that
This introductory chapter will provide a description of what the
is, the traditional way of conceiving ‘punishment’ in relationship to
subsequent chapters are about. Before doing that, however, an attempt
‘crime’. These chapters display the thoughts of a sociologist rather than
will be made to locate their topics within the context of criminology
a philosopher or a lawyer. However, in dealing with each of the issues,
and, more specifically, critical criminology.
a modest attempt is made to avoid disciplinary insularity as well as an
exclusive emphasis on either theory or practice. This introduction and
the concluding chapter serve to locate the remaining chapters within What is critical criminology?
the larger context of critical criminology by providing the reader with
In the 1970s, criminology suffered from a bad reputation. On the one
an account of what these debates are all about.
hand,' it was chastised by the Right for its obvious lack of success
The book is based on the assumption that criminology must draw on its
not only in explaining the causes of crime, but in presenting viable
philosophical foundations, if it is to continue its theoretical and practical
solutions to it. In the face of efforts against poverty and unemploy­
development (Bean, 1981, p. vii). It will be argued that what is true
ment, the destruction of slums, the establishment and expansion of
for criminology in general holds even more for critical criminology. In
welfare provisions and social services, crime rates continued to rise.
the debates about the politics of crime, punishment and penal reform
Moreover, increasing recidivism rates testified that rehabilitation of
several weaknesses in critical criminology have emerged, threatening the
offenders didn’t work. This resulted in the replacement of the positivist
very foundations upon which our thinking about crime and punishment
paradigm in mainstream criminology with a new realism, geared toward
ultimately rests. It is my contention that issues of morality, justice and
the business of research and development of criminal policy rather
rationality inherent in the theory and praxis of critical criminology are
than the explanation and understanding of crime and delinquency.
crucial for its future. My conclusion will be that in order to deal with
Eventually, mainstream criminology became exactly what it had formerly
these fundamental problems, inherent in the current ‘crisis’ of critical
been accused of by the Left: namely^ a police science and a subcon­
criminology, we need to draw upon the normative theorizing already
tractor of the larger businesses of criminal justice and crime control.
being done in critical social theory and philosophy. Had I reached this
Mainstream criminology had been attacked for its focus on technical
conclusion before embarking on the projects presented in various chapters
applications rather than values, its lack of fundamental theoretical
of this book, I would probably have been tempted to test this claim and
and historical background, and its tendency to ignore the power and
show it to be a correct one. However, in view of how things actually went,
discrimination involved in the administration of criminal justice. In
the following chapters describe my growing dissatisfaction with various
short,
arguments (including some of my own) and mark the steps I had to take
before becoming fully aware of the necessity of bringing criminology back
the ‘diseased core’ of conventional criminology consisted in its con­
to the realm of critical social theory. Having reached the end at long last,
ception of society as consensual, its assumption that law was emergent
I remain firmly convinced that there is ‘a need for more “Utopian” theory
rather than imposed (the social contract theory), its inattention to
constructior^’. At the same time, however, I am not at all sure that ‘the
economic structure, and its commitment to -or, at least acquiescence
loose talk about legality, morality, justice needs to be related to classic
-in the view that ‘criminals’ (legally defined) should be the essential
and current attempts (most notably those identified with Rawls, 1971)
target of all efforts at amelioration of or response to ‘the crime problem’
to specify the abstract properties of a just system’ (Cohen,- 1979, p. 48). I
(Spitzer, 1980, p. 174).
4 The Politics of Redress Introduction 5
In contrast to traditional criminology, critical criminology started with Critical criminology differs from traditional mainstream criminology
the assumptions that the present social order is unjust in not guaranteeing with its ‘correctionalistic’ approach in that it takes the side of the
equal opportunities for everyone, that the definition of what is or is not a controlled, sharing their perspective rather than that of the .controllers.
crime is biased by unequal relations within the social order, and that the It tries to understand deviancy rather than condemn or explain it away.
legitimacy of the state to punish offenders under these conditions is, at It nurtures a mistrust toward penological experts, refusing to provide them
least, questionable, and, at worst, completely absent. with new fodder for their penal obsession. It attempts to expose injustice
This set of assumptions focuses attention on the social reactions to by pointing out the biases and contradictions involved in criminal justice.
deviant, and criminal behaviour and raises questions such as: To what And, finally, it tries to ensure that critical criminologists are ‘not first and
degree does the law protect the prerogatives of the privileged, while foremost to be received as useful problem-solvers, but as problem raisers’
infringing on the rights of the dispossessed, denigrating their dignity and (Christie, 1971).^
destroying their possibilities? To what degree do crime control agents,
in their effort to maintain* ‘order’, contribute to the oppression of those
The ^crisis’ in critical criminology
who benefit the least from the present social order? Does criminal law
by protecting human rights contribute to human dignity? The current ‘crisis’ in critical criminology is occurring in reaction to
In actual fact, the idea of there being a substantial and distinctive a shift to the Right in penal politics and a gradual drifting toward a
rupture between a so-called old criminology and an emergent new politics of law and order. A restorative trend can be seen in a silent
criminology in the 1970s is somewhat misleading. It is more accurate majority which urges the intervention by a strong, coercive state. An
to speak of a plurality of often mutually-exclusive new criminologies authoritarian consensus has emerged concerning issues of criminal justice
rather than of a single new criminology (Wiles, 1976, p. 32). It has and social control. New forms of surveillance and discipline are being
been suggested that the term ‘new criminology’ might be used to, indicate established. The overall trend is in the direction of less (social) welfare
a broad perspective subsuming ‘radical’, ‘critical’, ‘Marxist’ and ‘conflict and more (criminal) ‘justice’. These developments have elicited debates
criminology’ alike (Pelffey, 1980, p. 235). In this book, the term ‘critical within critical criminology about its credibility. Questions are raised
criminology’ will be used, albeit in much the same way. Indeed, this concerning how to respond to the shift to the Right in criminal justice
was how critical criminology was introduced initially, that is, to cover and how to translate new criminology into new penal politics which can
a representative sample of the early work in ‘new criminology’ in the provide a truly credible alternative.
USA, Britain and Europe. Among the manifestations of this shift to the Right is ‘new realism’
In their introduction to Critical Criminology (197S), Taylor, Walton and about crime and punishment. Signs of this new trend are myriad. For
Young considered the suggestion ‘premature’ that a new critical crimino­ example, governments, who had formerly taken the blame for being
logical paradigm had emerged. Critical criminology^ still in its infancy permissive, are changing their strategies and becoming crime fighters.
and healthily diverse, was more adequately depicted as a trend .away As a result, we see serious efforts to expand and empower the repressive
from orthodox criminology and ‘towards social theories of rule-creation state apparatuses, a redistribution of public expenditures to the benefit
and rule-breaking, located in a wider more complex moral and social of policing and the administration of criminal justice, and an increasing
dynamic’ (Taylor, Walton and Young, 1975, p. 2). More specifically, severity in sentencing practices, particularly against the unemployed.
critical criminology was defined as ‘the project of posing fundamental Prison populations in most Western countries soar and in many countries
and consistent challenges to the everyday political assumptions, practices new prisons, are springing up like toadstools.
and implications of one of the most influential and state-dominated The groundwork for this new ‘getting tough’ policy in criminal justice
branches of applied social “science” - the “science” of criminology’ has been laid by ‘intellectuals for law and order’ (Platt and Takagi, 1978).
(ibid., p. 5). Advocating a ‘new realist’ criminology, these scholars dismiss both causal
The objective of a critical criminology is "critically to investigate explanations and contextual understandings of crime as a sheer waste of
the facts of Criminalization and imprisonment, to demask the ‘moral time. They argue that criminology should instead be dedicated strictly to
and ideological veneer’ of an unequal society, and to enliven critical controlling street-crime. They claim that punishment does, after all, have
debates about modes of social change towards ‘post-capitalist alternatives’ a deterrent effect on crime. Rehabilitation of offenders does not work
(ibid). and incapacitating them by imprisonm^t is what is needed effectively
Introduction 7
6 The Politics of Redress
critical criminology, itself a product of the more general process of the
to reduce crime as a major social problem. Indeed, ‘punishment is not
politicization of social philosophy and social theory (Taylor, Walton and
an unworthy objective for the criminal justice system of a free and liberal
Young, 1975, p. 1)^ debates concerning penal issues have been notably
society to pursue’ (Wilson, 1983, p. 5).
absent. According to Garland and Young this omission could hardly be
This no-nonsense approach to crime and punishment has been, and
avoided as critical criminology could not provide a framework for social
continues to be, massively appreciated. It has been highly instrumental in
analysis of the penal realm or, as they call it, ‘penality’ (Garland and
the attempts of conservative parties to gain power. The popularity of the
Young, 1983, p. 7). Critical criminology raised criticisms against the
new Right uncomfortably confronts the Left, both liberals and socialists
selectivity of the penal system,-rather than its (ir)rationality. In the
alike, with some of the serious flaws in their own political strategies
void produced by an overall anti-correctionalist stance, the question of
(Lasch, 1986). Fundamental shortcomings have also become apparent
punishment, which is always at the core of criminal politics, was ignored
within critical criminology. In a context of a society shifting politically
or fudged (Cohen, 1979, p. 25).^ However, even in instances ‘where
to the Right, extra heat has been added to the debates, resulting in bitter
criminology has treated punishment seriously, it has often proceeded as
controversies. Since the question of how to respond to the ‘law and order’
if it were simply an epiphenomenon of crime - nothing more than a social
backlash could no longer be avoided, a crisis in critical criminology was
knee jerk to the hammer tap of crime’ (Spitzer, 1985, p. 576).
inevitable (Inciardi, 1980; Melossi, 1985).
Since punishment is at the core of criminal politics, however, it is ‘fatal’
As I have said, the chapters of this book have been written in the
that the issue has been, for the most part, ignored within critical criminol­
context of that crisis. They take issue with debates currently being ^aged
ogy or ‘obscured by a careless and tendentious reading of the fit between
within criminology, particularly within critical criminology, about realism
criminological theory and policy’ (Cohen, 1979, p. 25). This unfortunate
versus ‘idealism’ or abolitionism. Neither Left realism nor abolitionism
omission has impaired its credibility and contributed to the crisis in critical
are consistent paradigms, let alone coherent theories; They are merely
criminology. I will show that this attitude has turned out to be politically
approaches entailing certain attitudes and points of view. Whereas the
irresponsible, morally unacceptable and theoretically flawed. In avoiding
former deals particularly with the issue of crime, the latter concentrates
the hot issue of the problem of crime and what to do about it, critical
on the issue of punishment.
criminology left the arena wide open to interventions from the right. The
‘penal vacuum’ was filled by a punishment-minded, ‘getting tough’ penal
Critical criminology and the politics of punishment policy based on the new realism of mainstream criminology. A critical
criminological approach to punishment has become more than timely.
Punishment has been studied by various disciplines such as philoso­
The concept of punishment, however, is too limited as a starting point
phy, jurisprudence, social anthropology and history, psychology and
for a discussion of the politics of crime, punishment and penal reform.
psychoanalysis, social and political science, etc. Within criminology
Garland and Young have argued convincingly against the reductionist
however, punishment has been a more or less, neglected topic. Tradi­
tendency implicit in the sociological and philosophical analysis of pun­
tionally, positivist criminology has been uncomfortable with the issue of
ishment. They note that
punishment, leaving it to penology, jurisprudence, and moral philosophy.
Modem criminology presented itself as an antidote to cmel and unusual
penal practices have conventionally been dealt with by penology in
punishment, rather than a perspective for its systematic investigation. -It
a narrow technicist manner as a simple response to crime or else
promised a more civilized and enlightened response to crime. As-a result,
within the terms of moral philosophy as a singular social reaction
criminology has remained insensitive to the significance of punishment for
with particular moral implications. In either ca.se, the ‘social context’
the relationship between crime and society, thereby excluding the entire
within which penal practices take place is marginalized. As a result,
range of penal policies and practices from the criminological discourse
the diversity and complexity of the object as well as the contradictions
(Spitzer, 1985, p. 575).
between the many elements within the field of penal practices are being
The reasons for this are obvious. The positivism, which had dominated
denied (Garland and Young, 1983, p. 20).
the field for such a long time, concentrated on aetiology or the search for
the causes of crime. To a large extent the reaction to crime was taken for
For example, penal philosophies usually assume that punishment is
granted. It was critical criminology which focused attention on both the
to be understood solely as negative response to crime. In fact, crime
social and legal definition of and reactions to crime. However, even within
8 The Politics of Redress Introduction 9
and crime control do, to some extent, relate to penal practices but, hope to succeed without changing our ways of thinking about punishment
as Garland and Young have put it, ‘crime’ no more determines the and crime. '
character of penality than ‘human need’ determines the specific nature
of the economy.
Critical criminology and the politics of crime
However, not only philosophers, but sociologists as well, tend to
be reductionist in their analyses of punishment. Usually, they have In their zeal to respond to and, indeed, compete with ‘Right realism’,
simply applied their general sociological analyses to the empirical object ‘Left realists’ accuse critical criminology of playing down the impact of
‘punishment’ with the effect that the ‘integrity of the object’ is destroyed. crime on the working class, denying the essentially moral nature of crime,
Penal institutions, like criminal courts or prisons, each produce their and attempting to explain crime control, while, at the same time, ignoring
own specific penal and social effects by reproducing a variety of prac' the causes of crime itself. Moreover, they attack critical criminology for
tices and procedures and by drawing differentially on legal, finan­ discarding what might be potential building blocks for a new criminology
cial and other resources. Operating throughout these institutional dif­ and being blind to what mainstream criminology can have to offer. In a
ferentiations is a diverse variety of discourses' and ideologies. They nutshell, critical criminologists are admonished to face up to the reality
find their expression not only in the concrete practices of the penal of crime, take crime seriously, and finally seek a solution to it (Young,
institutions, but also in government policy.and the rhetoric of par­ J., 1986, p. 28). We are asked to become ‘realist’ problem-solvers, instead
liamentary debate. These discursive and ideological elements of the of just ‘idealist’ problem raisers.
penal complex should also be treated as legitimate objects of penal Especially in Britain, ‘Left realism’ flourishes as reaction to the shift to
analysis. the Right with its politics of law and order. It has also elicited a bitter
In order fully to appreciate the complex social function of punishment, socialist response there. In most publications, the discussions, therefore,
we must reject the concept of punishment and install in its place a tend to be confined to the British context (Lea and Young, 1984;
less tendentious term. This term must signify a field of institutions, Matthews and Young, 1986; Scraton, 1987). This book offers a more
practices and relations rather than a singular and essential type of social distanced view of current issues in penal politics by taking a comparative
event. To this end the term ‘penality’ has been suggested. Garland and approach.
Young conceive of ‘penality’ as a specific ‘institutional site’, traversed ‘Abolitionists’ take a radical stand against ‘new realism’ - both right and
by a series of different social relations (political, ideological, economic, left. The term ‘abolitionism’ stands for a social movement; a theoretical
legal). perspective; and a political strategy; is devoted to a radical critique of
Their book The Power to Punish — to which several other authors made the criminal justice system and committed to penal abolition. On the
their contribution - ‘intended to signify a shift away from traditional basis of their analysis of the shift to the Right in criminal justice politics,
moral and technical penology towards a political and social analysis of abolitionists have come to radically different conclusions from the realists.
the institutions, practices and techniques! of punishment as well as other They argue that there is no such thing as ‘crime’. The concept of crime
forms of sanction. The question which was raised is a crucial one: how has no ontological dimension. It is a social construction, to be analyzed
can social relations and institutions be reconstructed as ‘alternative forms as one of the potent myths of everyday life. This is not to deny that
of penality which are more socialist, more popular, more democratic’ there are all sorts of unfortunate events, more or less serious troubles
(Garland and Young, 1983, p. 33)? I will also be dealing with this issue or conflicts which can result in suffering, harm, or damage to a greater
in the present inquiry. or lesser degree. These troubles are to be taken seriously, of course, but
As I see it, the politics of ‘redress’, must involve both discursive and not as ‘crimes’. In any case, they should not be dealt with by means of
non-discursive practices. In this book, however, I will repeatedly be criminal law. Criminal justice resembles magical abracadabra, serving no
emphasizing the discursive aspects of reform. This is not intended as other purpose than to convince its ‘true believers’ of what they already
a denial of the ‘hardware’ of penality. Nor does it deny the regrettable know. Abolitionists radically deal with the question of punishment by
fact that Ayhenever social and economic conditions and power relations claiming that there can be no valid justification for it, particularly since
result in scenarios involving a hard-core politics of punishment, the other options are available for law enforcement. For them punishment
minimal conditions for a politics of redress may simply not be met. is the heart of the matter. They do not share the realist belief in the
Nevertheless, it is my contention that no politics of reform can ever criminal law’s capacity for conflict resolution. The criminal justice system