Excess Incarceration

IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Vincent Chiao
{"title":"Excess Incarceration","authors":"Vincent Chiao","doi":"10.1111/japp.70018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>‘Mass incarceration’, as conventionally understood, refers to an imprisoned population that is both excessive in size and racially skewed in its demographics. However, in contrast to racial skew, the appropriate size of a prison system has largely escaped analysis. This article contributes to analysis of the scale of a prison system in two ways. First, I show why non-controversial principles linking crime to punishment, such as guilt and proportionality, are insufficient. Because incarceration rates are driven more by social policy than by crime, an adequate analysis of scale presupposes an account of what we hope to get out of punishing people in the first place. Second, drawing on a generic crime-prevention account of incarceration, I sketch three increasingly resolving, but also increasingly contentious, conceptions of excess: the Pareto, social welfare, and utilitarian conceptions. Along the way, I briefly consider the trade-off between how committal a theory of incarceration is and its ability to explain what is wrong with mass incarceration, as well as the concern that the social welfare and, especially, utilitarian concepts are excessively paternalistic. The ultimate aim of the article is to contribute to our understanding of mass incarceration as a distinctive normative concept.</p>","PeriodicalId":47057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":"42 4","pages":"1210-1229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/japp.70018","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.70018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

‘Mass incarceration’, as conventionally understood, refers to an imprisoned population that is both excessive in size and racially skewed in its demographics. However, in contrast to racial skew, the appropriate size of a prison system has largely escaped analysis. This article contributes to analysis of the scale of a prison system in two ways. First, I show why non-controversial principles linking crime to punishment, such as guilt and proportionality, are insufficient. Because incarceration rates are driven more by social policy than by crime, an adequate analysis of scale presupposes an account of what we hope to get out of punishing people in the first place. Second, drawing on a generic crime-prevention account of incarceration, I sketch three increasingly resolving, but also increasingly contentious, conceptions of excess: the Pareto, social welfare, and utilitarian conceptions. Along the way, I briefly consider the trade-off between how committal a theory of incarceration is and its ability to explain what is wrong with mass incarceration, as well as the concern that the social welfare and, especially, utilitarian concepts are excessively paternalistic. The ultimate aim of the article is to contribute to our understanding of mass incarceration as a distinctive normative concept.

多余的监禁
按照传统的理解,“大规模监禁”指的是被监禁的人口规模过大,而且在人口统计学上存在种族偏见。然而,与种族歧视相比,监狱系统的适当规模在很大程度上没有得到分析。本文从两个方面对监狱系统的规模进行了分析。首先,我说明了为什么将犯罪与惩罚联系起来的无争议原则,如有罪和相称性,是不够的。由于监禁率更多地是由社会政策而非犯罪驱动的,因此对规模进行充分分析的前提是,我们首先要考虑到我们希望从惩罚中得到什么。其次,根据对监禁的一般预防犯罪的描述,我概述了三个日益解决,但也越来越有争议的过度概念:帕累托,社会福利和功利主义概念。在此过程中,我简要地考虑了监禁理论的承诺程度与其解释大规模监禁问题的能力之间的权衡,以及对社会福利,特别是功利主义概念过于家长式的担忧。本文的最终目的是帮助我们理解大规模监禁作为一个独特的规范概念。
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
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信