Book review: Halfway Home: Race, Punishment and the Afterlife of Mass Incarceration

IF 1.5 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Dave Henderson
{"title":"Book review: Halfway Home: Race, Punishment and the Afterlife of Mass Incarceration","authors":"Dave Henderson","doi":"10.1177/02645505221116460b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"incorrigible lack of conscience that acts as an inhibitor to developing and maintaining co-citizen dispositions” (p. 126: emphasis in original). She believes that this will only be a small percentage of the convicted population and uses Timothy McVeigh and Anders Brevik as examples of those who can legitimately be denied the right to vote. This is not just because what they have done are crimes (which they obviously are), but “more with the fact that they are the most harmful behaviors against a community” (p. 132). Tripkovic later develops her argument further with an interesting question: if disenfranchisement is a non-penal sanction, could it be used against those who have not broken the criminal law? She concedes that: “I find no reason not to exclude such people from the application of the restriction if both the subjective and objective conditions are satisfied. However, I also trust that this is more of a theoretical than a practical problem: it seems unimaginable that an act could be so serious as to profoundly damage—economically, politically, militarily, or in another way—a community and at the same time not constitute a crime” (p. 132). Unfortunately, even in modern democracies, there are acts that cause overwhelming social and economic harm, individual human suffering and community destruction. The perpetrators remain neither sanctioned, nor their activities criminalised. As disenfranchisement is a widespread practice in the US and Europe, albeit to different degrees, Punishment and Citizenship makes an important contribution to the literature on criminal disenfranchisement. It is both empirically meticulous and theoretically rigorous. It should be read and the thought-provoking arguments considered carefully by anyone interested in punishment and citizenship.","PeriodicalId":45814,"journal":{"name":"PROBATION JOURNAL","volume":"69 1","pages":"395 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROBATION JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505221116460b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

incorrigible lack of conscience that acts as an inhibitor to developing and maintaining co-citizen dispositions” (p. 126: emphasis in original). She believes that this will only be a small percentage of the convicted population and uses Timothy McVeigh and Anders Brevik as examples of those who can legitimately be denied the right to vote. This is not just because what they have done are crimes (which they obviously are), but “more with the fact that they are the most harmful behaviors against a community” (p. 132). Tripkovic later develops her argument further with an interesting question: if disenfranchisement is a non-penal sanction, could it be used against those who have not broken the criminal law? She concedes that: “I find no reason not to exclude such people from the application of the restriction if both the subjective and objective conditions are satisfied. However, I also trust that this is more of a theoretical than a practical problem: it seems unimaginable that an act could be so serious as to profoundly damage—economically, politically, militarily, or in another way—a community and at the same time not constitute a crime” (p. 132). Unfortunately, even in modern democracies, there are acts that cause overwhelming social and economic harm, individual human suffering and community destruction. The perpetrators remain neither sanctioned, nor their activities criminalised. As disenfranchisement is a widespread practice in the US and Europe, albeit to different degrees, Punishment and Citizenship makes an important contribution to the literature on criminal disenfranchisement. It is both empirically meticulous and theoretically rigorous. It should be read and the thought-provoking arguments considered carefully by anyone interested in punishment and citizenship.
书评:《回家的中途:种族、惩罚和大规模监禁的来世》
无可救药的良心缺乏,阻碍了共同公民倾向的发展和维持”(第126页:原文重点)。她认为,这只会占被定罪人口的一小部分,并以蒂莫西·麦克维和安德斯·布雷维克为例,说明那些可以被合法剥夺投票权的人。这不仅仅是因为他们所做的是犯罪(他们显然是),但“更多的事实是,他们是对一个社区最有害的行为”(第132页)。特里普科维奇后来提出了一个有趣的问题,进一步发展了她的论点:如果剥夺公民权是一种非刑事制裁,它是否可以用于那些没有违反刑法的人?她承认:“如果主观和客观条件都得到满足,我认为没有理由不将这些人排除在限制的适用之外。然而,我也相信,这更多的是一个理论问题,而不是一个实际问题:似乎难以想象的是,一种行为可能如此严重,以至于在经济上,政治上,军事上或其他方面深刻地损害了一个社区,同时不构成犯罪”(第132页)。不幸的是,即使在现代民主国家,也存在造成压倒性的社会和经济损害、个人痛苦和社区破坏的行为。肇事者既没有受到制裁,也没有将其活动定为犯罪。由于剥夺公民权在美国和欧洲是一种普遍的做法,尽管程度不同,《惩罚与公民》对刑事剥夺公民权的文献做出了重要贡献。它在经验上细致,在理论上严谨。任何对惩罚和公民权感兴趣的人都应该仔细阅读并仔细考虑其中发人深省的论点。
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
PROBATION JOURNAL
PROBATION JOURNAL CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
26.70%
发文量
37
×
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