Continuity in the Face of Penal Innovation: Revisiting the History of American Solitary Confinement

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Ashley T. Rubin, Keramet Reiter
{"title":"Continuity in the Face of Penal Innovation: Revisiting the History of American Solitary Confinement","authors":"Ashley T. Rubin,&nbsp;Keramet Reiter","doi":"10.1111/lsi.12330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Solitary confinement has been a perennial tool of control in US prisons, despite its status as a repeatedly delegitimized practice. Although there have been significant changes in punishment over time, solitary confinement has remained, mostly at the margins and always as a response to past failures, part of an unending search for greater control over prisoners. This history raises the question of how a discredited penal technology can nevertheless persist. We locate the source of this persistence in prison administrators' unflagging belief in solitary confinement as a last-resort tool of control. To maintain this highly criticized practice, prison administrators strategically revise, but never abandon, discredited practices in response to antecedent legitimacy struggles. Using solitary confinement as a case study, we demonstrate how penal technologies that violate current sensibilities can survive, despite changing macro-level social factors that otherwise explain penal change and practice, provided those technologies serve prison officials' internal goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":47418,"journal":{"name":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lsi.12330","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsi.12330","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Solitary confinement has been a perennial tool of control in US prisons, despite its status as a repeatedly delegitimized practice. Although there have been significant changes in punishment over time, solitary confinement has remained, mostly at the margins and always as a response to past failures, part of an unending search for greater control over prisoners. This history raises the question of how a discredited penal technology can nevertheless persist. We locate the source of this persistence in prison administrators' unflagging belief in solitary confinement as a last-resort tool of control. To maintain this highly criticized practice, prison administrators strategically revise, but never abandon, discredited practices in response to antecedent legitimacy struggles. Using solitary confinement as a case study, we demonstrate how penal technologies that violate current sensibilities can survive, despite changing macro-level social factors that otherwise explain penal change and practice, provided those technologies serve prison officials' internal goals.

面对刑罚创新的连续性:重新审视美国单独监禁的历史
单独监禁一直是美国监狱的一种长期控制手段,尽管它一再被视为一种非法的做法。尽管随着时间的推移,惩罚方式发生了重大变化,但单独监禁仍然存在,主要是在边缘地带,而且总是作为对过去失败的回应,是不断寻求加强对囚犯控制的一部分。这段历史提出了一个问题:一项声名狼藉的刑罚技术是如何得以延续的?我们认为,这种顽固的根源在于监狱管理者坚持认为单独监禁是最后的控制手段。为了维持这种备受批评的做法,监狱管理者战略性地修改,但从未放弃,不可信的做法,以回应之前的合法性斗争。以单独监禁为例,我们展示了尽管宏观层面的社会因素不断变化,但如果这些技术服务于监狱官员的内部目标,那么违反当前情感的刑罚技术如何能够生存下来,否则就会解释刑罚的变化和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信