被困在刑罚时间胶囊中":印度无期徒刑囚犯刑期复核中的法外论述

Karan Tripathi, Netanel Dagan
{"title":"被困在刑罚时间胶囊中\":印度无期徒刑囚犯刑期复核中的法外论述","authors":"Karan Tripathi, Netanel Dagan","doi":"10.1177/14624745241243193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars argue that lifers’ parole can be mobilised to be punitive and politicised. However, how parole decision-makers construct and disguise their punitive and politicised discourses when deciding the paroled subject is understudied, especially with regard to the global south. In this paper, based on content analysis of the dossiers of Delhi's Sentence Review Board (SRB) during 2018–2021, and in-depth interviews with the SRB members, we found that most of the SRB's rejections were solely based on the crime, a violation of a lifers right to a meaningful consideration for premature release. The SRB members rationalise their decision-making through two discourses: ‘temporal entrapment’, and ‘disguised punitivism’. Through these discourses, the SRB exercises penal power which is formally unified by the legal scaffolding but discursively bifurcated, for negotiating competing penal and political values and logics.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"165 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Entrapped in a penal time capsule’: Extralegal discourses in sentence review of life prisoners in India\",\"authors\":\"Karan Tripathi, Netanel Dagan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14624745241243193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars argue that lifers’ parole can be mobilised to be punitive and politicised. However, how parole decision-makers construct and disguise their punitive and politicised discourses when deciding the paroled subject is understudied, especially with regard to the global south. In this paper, based on content analysis of the dossiers of Delhi's Sentence Review Board (SRB) during 2018–2021, and in-depth interviews with the SRB members, we found that most of the SRB's rejections were solely based on the crime, a violation of a lifers right to a meaningful consideration for premature release. The SRB members rationalise their decision-making through two discourses: ‘temporal entrapment’, and ‘disguised punitivism’. Through these discourses, the SRB exercises penal power which is formally unified by the legal scaffolding but discursively bifurcated, for negotiating competing penal and political values and logics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":148794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Punishment & Society\",\"volume\":\"165 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Punishment & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241243193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Punishment & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241243193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们认为,无期徒刑者的假释可以被动员起来,具有惩罚性和政治性。然而,假释决策者在决定假释对象时如何建构和掩饰其惩罚性和政治化话语却未得到充分研究,尤其是在全球南部。在本文中,基于对德里判决审查委员会(SRB)2018-2021年档案材料的内容分析,以及对SRB成员的深入访谈,我们发现SRB的大多数拒绝都仅仅基于罪行,这侵犯了终身监禁者获得有意义的过早释放考虑的权利。工代机构成员通过两种论述将其决策合理化:时间陷阱 "和 "变相惩罚主义"。通过这些话语,SRB 行使的刑罚权在形式上由法律支架统一,但在话语上是分叉的,用于协商相互竞争的刑罚和政治价值及逻辑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Entrapped in a penal time capsule’: Extralegal discourses in sentence review of life prisoners in India
Scholars argue that lifers’ parole can be mobilised to be punitive and politicised. However, how parole decision-makers construct and disguise their punitive and politicised discourses when deciding the paroled subject is understudied, especially with regard to the global south. In this paper, based on content analysis of the dossiers of Delhi's Sentence Review Board (SRB) during 2018–2021, and in-depth interviews with the SRB members, we found that most of the SRB's rejections were solely based on the crime, a violation of a lifers right to a meaningful consideration for premature release. The SRB members rationalise their decision-making through two discourses: ‘temporal entrapment’, and ‘disguised punitivism’. Through these discourses, the SRB exercises penal power which is formally unified by the legal scaffolding but discursively bifurcated, for negotiating competing penal and political values and logics.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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