Punitiveness Beyond Criminal Justice: Punishable and Punitive Subjects in an Era of Prevention, Anti-Migration and Austerity

Abstract

This article advances a holistic conceptualization of punitiveness that acknowledges its complexity and contemporary social and political pervasiveness. We argue that punitiveness is best understood as a phenomenological complex operating at a personal, symbolic, political and structural level, which borrows from, but extrapolates the confines of criminal justice institutions. The article examines limitations in articulations of punitiveness in criminological scholarship, and then draws on three contemporary case studies to investigate how the political deployment of anxieties and hostilities around the ‘crises’ of prevention, anti-migration and austerity reveal and reproduce punitive logics. It then outlines an original conceptual framework to argue that punitiveness ultimately revolves around the construction of, and dynamics between, punitive and punishable subjects.

An Expanded Analytical Gaze on Penal Power: Border Criminology and Punitiveness

“…A compelling debate on the need to redefine and broaden the analytical perspective on the penal power has gained traction in criminology, punishment and society and socio-legal academic milieus in recent years. This burgeoning literature argues that scholarly understandings of punishment, penality and punitiveness cannot be determined by strict legal definitions based on the legal nature of the phenomena under study (Beckett and Murakawa 2012;Bowling 2013;Carvalho, Chamberlen and Lewis 2020;Velloso 2013). In an increasingly complex social and legal landscape, crime prevention schemes are inextricably linked to many legal arrangements, policing rules and coercive measures regulated by civil law and administrative law provisions, which unambiguously amplify the scope of state coercion (Beckett and Murakawa 2012;Velloso 2013;Zedner 2016).…”

“…These hybrid manifestations of legal control show that legal boundaries are particularly porous (Hudson 2018; see also Weber and McCulloch 2019). By overlooking this reality, academic analyses provide incomprehensive and misleading accounts on the penal power, its scope and its current instantiations (Carvalho, Chamberlen and Lewis 2020;Di Molfetta and Brouwer 2020;Velloso 2013). This shortcoming has led some authors to craft notions that are wider, more heterogeneous and less legally determined than punishment, such as the 'carceral state' (Gottschalk 2013), and what United States (US) IJCJ&SD 3 www.crimejusticejournal.com social scientists Katherine Beckett and Naomi Murakawa (2012: 222; see also Beckett 2018) have called the 'shadow carceral state'.…”

“…This shortcoming has led some authors to craft notions that are wider, more heterogeneous and less legally determined than punishment, such as the 'carceral state' (Gottschalk 2013), and what United States (US) IJCJ&SD 3 www.crimejusticejournal.com social scientists Katherine Beckett and Naomi Murakawa (2012: 222; see also Beckett 2018) have called the 'shadow carceral state'. Invariably, these contributions mention immigration enforcement as one of the critical phenomena falling under the radar of mainstream accounts on penality (Beckett and Murakawa 2012;Carvalho, Chamberlen and Lewis 2020;Velloso 2013;Zedner 2016). The emerging border criminology literature has particularly elaborated this claim (Bosworth 2017(Bosworth , 2019Bosworth, Franko and Pickering 2018).…”

“…This literature has elaborated a widened perspective on penal power, arguing that the scale and intensity of migration enforcement measures, namely detention and deportation, should be considered to provide an accurate and finegrained assessment of state punitiveness. Consequently, this body of scholarship regards incarceration rates as an incomplete and misguiding indicator of the severity of a given criminal justice system (Aas 2014;Bosworth, Franko and Pickering 2018;Franko 2020;Pickering, Bosworth and Aas 2015; see also Carvalho, Chamberlen and Lewis 2020). By adopting this theoretical lens, the border criminology literature has shed new light on deeply entrenched conclusions on punitiveness and penality.…”

Current debates on immigration, crime, and penality: An introduction

“…Consequently, this body of scholarship sees incarceration rates as an incomplete and misguiding indicator of penal severity (Aas 2014;Bosworth et al 2018;Franko 2020;Pickering et al 2015; see also Carvalho et al 2020). In elaborating these claims, the border criminology literature has shed new light on a number of deeply entrenched conclusions on Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica Editorial, Volumen 18(2) (2020) https://doi.org/10.46381/reic.v18i2.565 www.criminologia.net ISSN: 1696-9219 penality, such as the so-called 'Scandinavian exceptionalism' thesis (Barker 2018;Franko 2020; see also Weber 2015).…”