Fracturing the penal state: State actors and the role of conflict in penal change

Abstract

The concept of a penal or carceral state has quickly become a staple in punishment and criminal justice literature. However, the concept, which suffers from a proliferation of meanings and is frequently undefined, gives readers the impression that there is a single, unified, and actor-less state responsible for punishment. This contradicts the thrust of recent punishment literature, which emphasizes fragmentation, variegation, and constant conflict across the actors and institutions that shape penal policy and practice. Using a case study of late-century Michigan, this paper develops an analytical approach that fractures the penal state, demonstrating that, far from a unified entity, it is a messy, often conflicted amalgamation of the various branches and actors in charge of punishment and the ways they resist the aims and policies sought by their fellow state actors. Ultimately, we argue that fracture is itself a variable that scholars must measure empirically and incorporate into their accounts of penal change.

Punishment's Legal Templates: A Theory of Formal Penal Change

“…A 2004 voter initiative was poised to mitigate the most extreme features of California's notorious three strikes law until advertisements funded by the state's powerful prison guard union and victims' rights lobby reversed public opinion on the law (Page ). Even among state actors, we find disagreements over penal policy within the ranks of the corrections staff (Goodman et al ) and between correctional administrators, the governor, and the legislature (Feeley and Rubin ; Lynch ; Rubin and Phelps ; Schoenfeld ). Traditional accounts of penal change overlook this subdermal contention about ostensibly dominant policies and technologies.…”

Redemption and reproach: Religion and carceral control in action among women in prison

“…When institutions operate inside correctional facilities themselves, such as educational programs within juvenile detention facilities (Flores, 2016) or drug treatment programs within prisons (McCorkel, 2013), they necessarily operate as an arm of surveillance while furthering their own aims. This is not to suggest a coordinated, conspiratorial effort (Schoenfeld, 2011) but a fractured, fragmented amalgamation of overlapping institutions (Rubin & Phelps, 2017) with real consequences. The organizations that operate inside, around, and adjacent to correctional institutions may perpetuate novel narratives, surveillance, and sanctions in furtherance of penal goals (Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015).…”

Breaking the Pendulum: Una sugerente lectura agonística sobre la penalidada

“…En realidad, el libro de Goodman, Page y Phelps no es sino la expresión más acabada de un recorrido analítico previo que conforma una tradición de pensamiento emergente. Por una parte, los propios autores ya habían publicado contribuciones en formatos más breves (Goodman, Page y Phelps 2015, Page 2013, Phelps 2016, Rubin y Phelps 2017 pero también de extensión análoga (Page 2011), que sentaban las bases de su método de análisis. De forma más genérica, las tesis de Pierre Bourdieu que se traslucen en el texto 2 ya habían comenzado a inspirar diversos estudios sobre la penalidad (vid., entre muchos otros, Chan 2004, González-Sánchez 2017, Hathazy 2013, Page 2011, Salle 2016vid.…”