便携式监狱:J.Gacek 著,蒙特利尔和金斯顿:麦吉尔-昆斯大学出版社。2022年,第186页。24.99 英镑(平装本)。书签号:9780228008286

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Nellis
{"title":"便携式监狱:J.Gacek 著,蒙特利尔和金斯顿:麦吉尔-昆斯大学出版社。2022年,第186页。24.99 英镑(平装本)。书签号:9780228008286","authors":"M. Nellis","doi":"10.1111/hojo.12552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I think the theoretical framework developed in this monograph to comprehend the nature of electronically monitoring (EM) offenders as a penal measure is groundbreaking and important, if not necessarily definitive. I do not, however, find the application of the framework to the actual use of EM-curfews in the specific jurisdiction of Scotland, where the author undertook his original PhD research, entirely convincing. This does not detract from the book, because the cluster of concepts which guide <i>Portable prisons</i> can be appraised separately from their application to Scotland.</p><p>Except for a limitation which was annoyingly forced on him by the Scottish Government – he was not allowed to interview people serving court-ordered time <i>in the community</i> on EM, only those who had been breached and returned to prison (for whom EM had notionally ‘failed’), Gacek's book is a model of how to study EM in a single jurisdiction. The polemical first chapter seeks first to ‘unsettle’ (p.4) readers about the extent to which ‘carceral’ (or as some might call them, ‘surveillant’) practices outside prison increasingly pervade everyday lives in ‘Western, liberal democracies’. It also rejects the legitimacy of using (any or all?) remote sensing-systems and databases to track and monitor peoples’ mobility. This flags up concerns that the concluding chapter revisits, about developing resistance to present and future carceral campaigns.</p><p>The second chapter elaborates Gacek's key explanatory/descriptive concept of ‘carceral territory’. It shows how spaces that might otherwise be called places, neighbourhoods and communities are structured by remote monitoring technologies and an associated set of legally and judicially-imposed regulations into a mode of governing the spatial and temporal schedules of designated offenders. ‘Carceral territory’ certainly illuminates the granular way in which satellite tracking operates to monitor the trails, traces and locations of mobile offenders 24/7, and – I agree – is not entirely without application to the simpler home detention models which curfew people in their own homes for twelve hours per day, mostly overnight. Since EM-curfews’ introduction in the late 1990s, Scotland – unlike many other jurisdictions – has done no more than toy with introducing more complex tracking systems. It has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe, but its use of EM remains among the least territorially restrictive available, and unless one is in the business of imposing a priori definitions, I would hesitate to call its practice here ‘carceral’.</p><p><i>Portable prisons</i> then provides two empirical chapters on the institutions and actors that enable and sustain the production of carceral territory on a 24/7 basis, one focused on the privatised monitoring centre run by G4S that oversees EM across the whole country, the other on the field monitoring officers who drive around Scotland each day installing sensors in offenders’ homes and tags on their ankles, as and when courts and prisons order them. In the monitoring centre Gacek observes and speaks with staff at their screens, extending and tailoring insights into the operation of EM from the ‘work of watching’ developed in studies of CCTV control rooms. In the ‘ride-alongs’ in the field officers’ cars he listens attentively to the meanings they give to their work, notes their interactions with householders and pays particular attention to the way they ‘calibrate carcerality’ by fine tuning the range of the ‘home monitoring unit’ to the internal spaces and boundaries of a particular home. I know Scotland's monitoring centre well and have also done the occasional ride-along, and Gacek, who is a very able noticer of things, etches this work indelibly into the penological imagination.</p><p>His final substantive chapter contains verbatim material from his interviews with people (mostly men, reflecting the gender distribution of EM's use) imprisoned for breaching their EM conditions. This not only adds to existing offender perspectives on EM, it builds on existing literature and stands out. It covers the prisoner's experiences of being on EM, the stresses and strains imposed on their loved ones, co-resident or otherwise, and it recognises the stigma of tag-wearing and the manœuvres required to disguise it from prying others. It also covers the impact of their return to prison after EM. Gacek registers his not being allowed to interview people actually serving time on EM as a methodological flaw, but this does not fundamentally devalue or weaken his study. True, if he had interviewed respondents ‘in that moment’ he might have found some of them – and especially their loved ones – more agreeable about the experience and the opportunity. But an attentive and sceptical reading of at least some of his own prisoner-derived quotes suggests that while his respondents had indeed found half-day EM curfews territorially restrictive, and definitely punitive, the term ‘carceral’ just does not seem apt for what they were feeling and experiencing about the freedoms that remained to them. The conclusion dubiously drawn from this data, namely that ‘EM is not actually “better” than prison, it is just a different form of prison’ (p.121) is something Gacek, and carceral geography in general, is reluctant to unpack.</p><p>Globally, some existing forms of EM, the dignity-denying, 24/7 home confinement enforced by satellite tracking in the USA, dubbed ‘e-carceration’, as well as malign visions of electro-shock ‘technological incarceration’ are too horrendously similar to prison (or worse) to quibble over terminology. But in my own work on EM I avoided thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments which imply that any use of EM in any form would lead <i>inexorably</i> down the line to the worst applications of it, and must therefore always be opposed in its earliest stages. This is ‘socio-technical determinism’, if not straightforward ‘technological determinism’ and it is something carceral geographers should take more care to avoid by acknowledging humanly-relevant variations in the intensity of carcerality or, perhaps better still, admitting that some penal measures are best called ‘carceral’ and others best left as ‘surveillant’, although they are, of course, never not related.</p><p>Gacek does make use of conceptual work on the variable ‘tightness’ of EM regimes (Hucklesby, Beyens &amp; Boone, 2020), but is not interested in its (liberal) implications for severity and proportionality, possibly because (using Foucault's distinction) it is the ‘diffuse’, as opposed to ‘compact’ forms of carcerality that unsettles him more. But, credit where it is due, it is because there is ample evidence elsewhere that through political-commercial pressures mild and relatively civilised forms of EM <i>are being</i> remorselessly upgraded into something intrusive and cruel that Gacek's mapping of ‘carceral territory’ will have to be taken account of in all future studies of EM.</p><p>But maybe not so much in Scotland, yet? Since Gacek completed his own research, a second excellent PhD has been completed on EM here (Casey, <span>2021</span>). It uses some similar empirical methods (including ride-alongs) and draws similar conclusions about EM-curfews’ limited relevance to what offenders with bleak lives in marginal communities really need, and whose privatised administration costs money perhaps better spent on more constructive interventions, <i>but without using the idioms of carceral geography</i>. This suggests that <i>Portable prisons</i> may be using a reified, overdetermined idea of ‘the carceral’ which, while undeniably productive of insights, need not be <i>foundational</i> to critical studies of EM, least of all Scotland's particular use of it. But it has a place.</p><p>Nonetheless, I think Gacek's over-reliance on the concept creates unnecessary difficulties in his final chapter on resisting carcerality in all its forms, everywhere. He makes an impeccable academic-activist case for ‘public education [which] has the potential to ameliorate suffering’ (p.145). In my experience of doing that, such projects only work when they unfold dialogically. The ultra-abstract, academic term ‘carceral’ has limited cachet in working-class communities who want something done about ongoing harmful behaviour, although it may well have more with people, and their loved ones, who have themselves experienced illegitimate state/penal power. The thing is, <i>both constituencies</i> warrant a place in any dialogue with activists, and in my own experience in Scotland neither working-class communities nor monitored individuals systematically regard EM-curfews as wholly illegitimate, no different from prison nor an intolerable penal experience, given the alternative that courts present to them. ‘The carceral’ in this dialogical context is more of a hard sell than a hard cell. There are better vernacular languages for resisting EM on the ground.</p><p>My antipathy to reified uses of carcerality was already in the public domain and Gacek ‘respectfully diverges from’ (p.6) it at the outset. I still think my surveillance-derived concept of ‘coercive connectivity’ is more apt than his carceral-derived term ‘portable prisons’ as an analytical characterisation of EM in general. Time will tell. It is nonetheless an honour to have one's work engaged with by a scholar as outstanding as James Gacek; he has written a necessary book about EM, which advances the arguments we undoubtedly need to have about it.</p>","PeriodicalId":37514,"journal":{"name":"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hojo.12552","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Portable prisons: Electronic monitoring and the creation of carceral territory By J. Gacek, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press. 2022. pp. 186. £24.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9780228008286\",\"authors\":\"M. Nellis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hojo.12552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>I think the theoretical framework developed in this monograph to comprehend the nature of electronically monitoring (EM) offenders as a penal measure is groundbreaking and important, if not necessarily definitive. I do not, however, find the application of the framework to the actual use of EM-curfews in the specific jurisdiction of Scotland, where the author undertook his original PhD research, entirely convincing. This does not detract from the book, because the cluster of concepts which guide <i>Portable prisons</i> can be appraised separately from their application to Scotland.</p><p>Except for a limitation which was annoyingly forced on him by the Scottish Government – he was not allowed to interview people serving court-ordered time <i>in the community</i> on EM, only those who had been breached and returned to prison (for whom EM had notionally ‘failed’), Gacek's book is a model of how to study EM in a single jurisdiction. The polemical first chapter seeks first to ‘unsettle’ (p.4) readers about the extent to which ‘carceral’ (or as some might call them, ‘surveillant’) practices outside prison increasingly pervade everyday lives in ‘Western, liberal democracies’. It also rejects the legitimacy of using (any or all?) remote sensing-systems and databases to track and monitor peoples’ mobility. This flags up concerns that the concluding chapter revisits, about developing resistance to present and future carceral campaigns.</p><p>The second chapter elaborates Gacek's key explanatory/descriptive concept of ‘carceral territory’. It shows how spaces that might otherwise be called places, neighbourhoods and communities are structured by remote monitoring technologies and an associated set of legally and judicially-imposed regulations into a mode of governing the spatial and temporal schedules of designated offenders. ‘Carceral territory’ certainly illuminates the granular way in which satellite tracking operates to monitor the trails, traces and locations of mobile offenders 24/7, and – I agree – is not entirely without application to the simpler home detention models which curfew people in their own homes for twelve hours per day, mostly overnight. Since EM-curfews’ introduction in the late 1990s, Scotland – unlike many other jurisdictions – has done no more than toy with introducing more complex tracking systems. It has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe, but its use of EM remains among the least territorially restrictive available, and unless one is in the business of imposing a priori definitions, I would hesitate to call its practice here ‘carceral’.</p><p><i>Portable prisons</i> then provides two empirical chapters on the institutions and actors that enable and sustain the production of carceral territory on a 24/7 basis, one focused on the privatised monitoring centre run by G4S that oversees EM across the whole country, the other on the field monitoring officers who drive around Scotland each day installing sensors in offenders’ homes and tags on their ankles, as and when courts and prisons order them. In the monitoring centre Gacek observes and speaks with staff at their screens, extending and tailoring insights into the operation of EM from the ‘work of watching’ developed in studies of CCTV control rooms. In the ‘ride-alongs’ in the field officers’ cars he listens attentively to the meanings they give to their work, notes their interactions with householders and pays particular attention to the way they ‘calibrate carcerality’ by fine tuning the range of the ‘home monitoring unit’ to the internal spaces and boundaries of a particular home. I know Scotland's monitoring centre well and have also done the occasional ride-along, and Gacek, who is a very able noticer of things, etches this work indelibly into the penological imagination.</p><p>His final substantive chapter contains verbatim material from his interviews with people (mostly men, reflecting the gender distribution of EM's use) imprisoned for breaching their EM conditions. This not only adds to existing offender perspectives on EM, it builds on existing literature and stands out. It covers the prisoner's experiences of being on EM, the stresses and strains imposed on their loved ones, co-resident or otherwise, and it recognises the stigma of tag-wearing and the manœuvres required to disguise it from prying others. It also covers the impact of their return to prison after EM. Gacek registers his not being allowed to interview people actually serving time on EM as a methodological flaw, but this does not fundamentally devalue or weaken his study. True, if he had interviewed respondents ‘in that moment’ he might have found some of them – and especially their loved ones – more agreeable about the experience and the opportunity. But an attentive and sceptical reading of at least some of his own prisoner-derived quotes suggests that while his respondents had indeed found half-day EM curfews territorially restrictive, and definitely punitive, the term ‘carceral’ just does not seem apt for what they were feeling and experiencing about the freedoms that remained to them. The conclusion dubiously drawn from this data, namely that ‘EM is not actually “better” than prison, it is just a different form of prison’ (p.121) is something Gacek, and carceral geography in general, is reluctant to unpack.</p><p>Globally, some existing forms of EM, the dignity-denying, 24/7 home confinement enforced by satellite tracking in the USA, dubbed ‘e-carceration’, as well as malign visions of electro-shock ‘technological incarceration’ are too horrendously similar to prison (or worse) to quibble over terminology. But in my own work on EM I avoided thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments which imply that any use of EM in any form would lead <i>inexorably</i> down the line to the worst applications of it, and must therefore always be opposed in its earliest stages. This is ‘socio-technical determinism’, if not straightforward ‘technological determinism’ and it is something carceral geographers should take more care to avoid by acknowledging humanly-relevant variations in the intensity of carcerality or, perhaps better still, admitting that some penal measures are best called ‘carceral’ and others best left as ‘surveillant’, although they are, of course, never not related.</p><p>Gacek does make use of conceptual work on the variable ‘tightness’ of EM regimes (Hucklesby, Beyens &amp; Boone, 2020), but is not interested in its (liberal) implications for severity and proportionality, possibly because (using Foucault's distinction) it is the ‘diffuse’, as opposed to ‘compact’ forms of carcerality that unsettles him more. But, credit where it is due, it is because there is ample evidence elsewhere that through political-commercial pressures mild and relatively civilised forms of EM <i>are being</i> remorselessly upgraded into something intrusive and cruel that Gacek's mapping of ‘carceral territory’ will have to be taken account of in all future studies of EM.</p><p>But maybe not so much in Scotland, yet? Since Gacek completed his own research, a second excellent PhD has been completed on EM here (Casey, <span>2021</span>). It uses some similar empirical methods (including ride-alongs) and draws similar conclusions about EM-curfews’ limited relevance to what offenders with bleak lives in marginal communities really need, and whose privatised administration costs money perhaps better spent on more constructive interventions, <i>but without using the idioms of carceral geography</i>. This suggests that <i>Portable prisons</i> may be using a reified, overdetermined idea of ‘the carceral’ which, while undeniably productive of insights, need not be <i>foundational</i> to critical studies of EM, least of all Scotland's particular use of it. But it has a place.</p><p>Nonetheless, I think Gacek's over-reliance on the concept creates unnecessary difficulties in his final chapter on resisting carcerality in all its forms, everywhere. He makes an impeccable academic-activist case for ‘public education [which] has the potential to ameliorate suffering’ (p.145). In my experience of doing that, such projects only work when they unfold dialogically. The ultra-abstract, academic term ‘carceral’ has limited cachet in working-class communities who want something done about ongoing harmful behaviour, although it may well have more with people, and their loved ones, who have themselves experienced illegitimate state/penal power. The thing is, <i>both constituencies</i> warrant a place in any dialogue with activists, and in my own experience in Scotland neither working-class communities nor monitored individuals systematically regard EM-curfews as wholly illegitimate, no different from prison nor an intolerable penal experience, given the alternative that courts present to them. ‘The carceral’ in this dialogical context is more of a hard sell than a hard cell. There are better vernacular languages for resisting EM on the ground.</p><p>My antipathy to reified uses of carcerality was already in the public domain and Gacek ‘respectfully diverges from’ (p.6) it at the outset. I still think my surveillance-derived concept of ‘coercive connectivity’ is more apt than his carceral-derived term ‘portable prisons’ as an analytical characterisation of EM in general. Time will tell. It is nonetheless an honour to have one's work engaged with by a scholar as outstanding as James Gacek; he has written a necessary book about EM, which advances the arguments we undoubtedly need to have about it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hojo.12552\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hojo.12552\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hojo.12552","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

但是,如果细心地、怀疑地阅读他自己引用的至少一些来自囚犯的话语,就会发现尽管他的受访者确实发现半日的少管所宵禁具有地域限制性,而且绝对是惩罚性的,但 "carceral "一词似乎并不适合他们对仍属于他们的自由的感受和体验。从这些数据中得出的结论令人怀疑,即 "少管所实际上并不比监狱'好',它只是监狱的另一种形式"(第 121 页)。在全球范围内,一些现有形式的少管所,如美国通过卫星跟踪实施的剥夺尊严、全天候的家庭监禁(被称为 "电子监禁"),以及对电击 "技术监禁 "的恶毒想象,都与监狱(或更糟糕的监狱)极为相似,无法在术语上争论不休。但在我自己关于电磁学的研究中,我避免了 "边缘论"(thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments),这种论点暗示,以任何形式使用电磁学都会不可避免地导致最糟糕的应用,因此必须在其最初阶段就予以反对。这就是 "社会技术决定论",如果不是直接的 "技术决定论 "的话。"监禁 "地理学家应该更小心地避免这种论调,承认 "监禁 "强度中与人类相关的变化,或者承认某些刑罚措施最好被称为 "监禁",而另一些则最好被称为 "监视",当然,它们从来都不是毫无关联的。加塞克确实利用了有关电磁制度的可变 "紧密性 "的概念性研究成果(哈克尔斯比、贝恩斯&amp;布恩,2020),但对其对严厉性和相称性的(自由)影响并不感兴趣,这可能是因为(使用福柯的区分)与 "紧密性 "相比,"分散性 "才是更令他不安的形式。不过,值得称赞的是,正是因为有大量证据表明,在政治-商业压力下,温和而相对文明的教育管理形式正被无情地升级为侵入性和残酷性的东西,所以加塞克对 "carceral territory "的描绘必须在未来对教育管理的所有研究中得到考虑。自加塞克完成自己的研究以来,这里又有一位出色的电磁学博士完成了研究(凯西,2021 年)。该研究使用了一些类似的实证方法(包括骑行),并得出了类似的结论:EM-curfews 与边缘社区生活凄惨的罪犯真正需要的东西相关性有限,而且其私有化管理所花费的资金或许更适合用于更具建设性的干预措施,但没有使用 "监禁地理学 "的成语。这表明,便携式监狱使用的可能是一种被重新定义的、过度确定的 "carceral "概念,虽然不可否认,这种概念具有深刻的洞察力,但不需要成为对EM进行批判性研究的基础,更不用说苏格兰对其的特殊使用。尽管如此,我认为加塞克对这一概念的过度依赖在他最后一章 "抵制一切形式的、无处不在的'卡塞尔性'"中造成了不必要的困难。他为 "有可能改善痛苦的公共教育"(第 145 页)提供了一个无可挑剔的学术-行动主义案例。根据我的工作经验,此类项目只有在以对话方式展开时才会奏效。在工人阶级社区,"carceral"(收容所)这一极端抽象的学术术语的影响力有限,因为他们希望对持续存在的有害行为采取一些措施,但对于那些亲身经历过非法国家/公共权力的人及其亲人来说,"carceral "的影响力可能更大。问题是,这两个群体在与活动家的对话中都有一席之地,根据我在苏格兰的亲身经历,无论是工人阶级社区还是受监控的个人,都没有系统地将少管所视为完全非法的,与监狱无异,也不是不可容忍的刑罚经历,因为法院为他们提供了另一种选择。在这种对话背景下,"监禁 "与其说是一个坚硬的牢房,不如说是一种艰难的推销。我对'carcerality'的重化使用的反感已经在公共领域出现,加塞克一开始就'恭敬地偏离了'(第6页)。我仍然认为,我的 "强制连接 "概念源于监控,比他的 "便携式监狱 "概念源于carceral,更适合作为一般电磁的分析特征。时间会证明一切。不过,我很荣幸自己的作品能得到像詹姆斯-加塞克这样杰出的学者的关注;他写了一本关于电磁的必要的书,推动了我们无疑需要对电磁进行的争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Portable prisons: Electronic monitoring and the creation of carceral territory By J. Gacek, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press. 2022. pp. 186. £24.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9780228008286

I think the theoretical framework developed in this monograph to comprehend the nature of electronically monitoring (EM) offenders as a penal measure is groundbreaking and important, if not necessarily definitive. I do not, however, find the application of the framework to the actual use of EM-curfews in the specific jurisdiction of Scotland, where the author undertook his original PhD research, entirely convincing. This does not detract from the book, because the cluster of concepts which guide Portable prisons can be appraised separately from their application to Scotland.

Except for a limitation which was annoyingly forced on him by the Scottish Government – he was not allowed to interview people serving court-ordered time in the community on EM, only those who had been breached and returned to prison (for whom EM had notionally ‘failed’), Gacek's book is a model of how to study EM in a single jurisdiction. The polemical first chapter seeks first to ‘unsettle’ (p.4) readers about the extent to which ‘carceral’ (or as some might call them, ‘surveillant’) practices outside prison increasingly pervade everyday lives in ‘Western, liberal democracies’. It also rejects the legitimacy of using (any or all?) remote sensing-systems and databases to track and monitor peoples’ mobility. This flags up concerns that the concluding chapter revisits, about developing resistance to present and future carceral campaigns.

The second chapter elaborates Gacek's key explanatory/descriptive concept of ‘carceral territory’. It shows how spaces that might otherwise be called places, neighbourhoods and communities are structured by remote monitoring technologies and an associated set of legally and judicially-imposed regulations into a mode of governing the spatial and temporal schedules of designated offenders. ‘Carceral territory’ certainly illuminates the granular way in which satellite tracking operates to monitor the trails, traces and locations of mobile offenders 24/7, and – I agree – is not entirely without application to the simpler home detention models which curfew people in their own homes for twelve hours per day, mostly overnight. Since EM-curfews’ introduction in the late 1990s, Scotland – unlike many other jurisdictions – has done no more than toy with introducing more complex tracking systems. It has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe, but its use of EM remains among the least territorially restrictive available, and unless one is in the business of imposing a priori definitions, I would hesitate to call its practice here ‘carceral’.

Portable prisons then provides two empirical chapters on the institutions and actors that enable and sustain the production of carceral territory on a 24/7 basis, one focused on the privatised monitoring centre run by G4S that oversees EM across the whole country, the other on the field monitoring officers who drive around Scotland each day installing sensors in offenders’ homes and tags on their ankles, as and when courts and prisons order them. In the monitoring centre Gacek observes and speaks with staff at their screens, extending and tailoring insights into the operation of EM from the ‘work of watching’ developed in studies of CCTV control rooms. In the ‘ride-alongs’ in the field officers’ cars he listens attentively to the meanings they give to their work, notes their interactions with householders and pays particular attention to the way they ‘calibrate carcerality’ by fine tuning the range of the ‘home monitoring unit’ to the internal spaces and boundaries of a particular home. I know Scotland's monitoring centre well and have also done the occasional ride-along, and Gacek, who is a very able noticer of things, etches this work indelibly into the penological imagination.

His final substantive chapter contains verbatim material from his interviews with people (mostly men, reflecting the gender distribution of EM's use) imprisoned for breaching their EM conditions. This not only adds to existing offender perspectives on EM, it builds on existing literature and stands out. It covers the prisoner's experiences of being on EM, the stresses and strains imposed on their loved ones, co-resident or otherwise, and it recognises the stigma of tag-wearing and the manœuvres required to disguise it from prying others. It also covers the impact of their return to prison after EM. Gacek registers his not being allowed to interview people actually serving time on EM as a methodological flaw, but this does not fundamentally devalue or weaken his study. True, if he had interviewed respondents ‘in that moment’ he might have found some of them – and especially their loved ones – more agreeable about the experience and the opportunity. But an attentive and sceptical reading of at least some of his own prisoner-derived quotes suggests that while his respondents had indeed found half-day EM curfews territorially restrictive, and definitely punitive, the term ‘carceral’ just does not seem apt for what they were feeling and experiencing about the freedoms that remained to them. The conclusion dubiously drawn from this data, namely that ‘EM is not actually “better” than prison, it is just a different form of prison’ (p.121) is something Gacek, and carceral geography in general, is reluctant to unpack.

Globally, some existing forms of EM, the dignity-denying, 24/7 home confinement enforced by satellite tracking in the USA, dubbed ‘e-carceration’, as well as malign visions of electro-shock ‘technological incarceration’ are too horrendously similar to prison (or worse) to quibble over terminology. But in my own work on EM I avoided thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments which imply that any use of EM in any form would lead inexorably down the line to the worst applications of it, and must therefore always be opposed in its earliest stages. This is ‘socio-technical determinism’, if not straightforward ‘technological determinism’ and it is something carceral geographers should take more care to avoid by acknowledging humanly-relevant variations in the intensity of carcerality or, perhaps better still, admitting that some penal measures are best called ‘carceral’ and others best left as ‘surveillant’, although they are, of course, never not related.

Gacek does make use of conceptual work on the variable ‘tightness’ of EM regimes (Hucklesby, Beyens & Boone, 2020), but is not interested in its (liberal) implications for severity and proportionality, possibly because (using Foucault's distinction) it is the ‘diffuse’, as opposed to ‘compact’ forms of carcerality that unsettles him more. But, credit where it is due, it is because there is ample evidence elsewhere that through political-commercial pressures mild and relatively civilised forms of EM are being remorselessly upgraded into something intrusive and cruel that Gacek's mapping of ‘carceral territory’ will have to be taken account of in all future studies of EM.

But maybe not so much in Scotland, yet? Since Gacek completed his own research, a second excellent PhD has been completed on EM here (Casey, 2021). It uses some similar empirical methods (including ride-alongs) and draws similar conclusions about EM-curfews’ limited relevance to what offenders with bleak lives in marginal communities really need, and whose privatised administration costs money perhaps better spent on more constructive interventions, but without using the idioms of carceral geography. This suggests that Portable prisons may be using a reified, overdetermined idea of ‘the carceral’ which, while undeniably productive of insights, need not be foundational to critical studies of EM, least of all Scotland's particular use of it. But it has a place.

Nonetheless, I think Gacek's over-reliance on the concept creates unnecessary difficulties in his final chapter on resisting carcerality in all its forms, everywhere. He makes an impeccable academic-activist case for ‘public education [which] has the potential to ameliorate suffering’ (p.145). In my experience of doing that, such projects only work when they unfold dialogically. The ultra-abstract, academic term ‘carceral’ has limited cachet in working-class communities who want something done about ongoing harmful behaviour, although it may well have more with people, and their loved ones, who have themselves experienced illegitimate state/penal power. The thing is, both constituencies warrant a place in any dialogue with activists, and in my own experience in Scotland neither working-class communities nor monitored individuals systematically regard EM-curfews as wholly illegitimate, no different from prison nor an intolerable penal experience, given the alternative that courts present to them. ‘The carceral’ in this dialogical context is more of a hard sell than a hard cell. There are better vernacular languages for resisting EM on the ground.

My antipathy to reified uses of carcerality was already in the public domain and Gacek ‘respectfully diverges from’ (p.6) it at the outset. I still think my surveillance-derived concept of ‘coercive connectivity’ is more apt than his carceral-derived term ‘portable prisons’ as an analytical characterisation of EM in general. Time will tell. It is nonetheless an honour to have one's work engaged with by a scholar as outstanding as James Gacek; he has written a necessary book about EM, which advances the arguments we undoubtedly need to have about it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice is an international peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing high quality theory, research and debate on all aspects of the relationship between crime and justice across the globe. It is a leading forum for conversation between academic theory and research and the cultures, policies and practices of the range of institutions concerned with harm, security and justice.
×
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