Recognising State Blame in Sentencing: A Communicative and Relational Framework

Manikis, Marie

doi:10.1017/s0008197322000198

Cited by 4 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The following section proposes a novel ‘sentence review’ process undertaken by a sentencing judge – rather than mechanisms that remain within the administrative purview of CSC – on the basis that conditions relating to imprisonment are a continuation of punishment as censure. This proposal builds on Manikis’ (2022) theoretical framework of ‘state blame/harms’ and ‘dynamic/relational censure’ to support the view that SIU wrongdoing and harms need to be analyzed, communicated, and accounted for within the process of re-sentencing by the judiciary – rather than remain within the administrative purview of correctional services. It then relies on a typology of state wrongs/harms to discuss possible ways to consider SIU harms within this sentence review.…”

Section: The Challenges and Harms Of Solitary Confinement: The Canadi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relying on this notion of dynamic censure, one of us (Manikis, 2022) has contributed to this communicative framework by expanding Roberts and Dagan's (2019) conception of censure to suggest that this concept should not only focus on individual censure but should also shift the analytical focus towards censuring the state. Manikis’ framework and its expanded understanding of censure specifically provides justifications and space to develop an analysis of the state's responsibilities and various types of harms to which it can be attributed.…”

Section: Theoretical Underpinnings Of Sentence Review In the Context ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…She suggests that censure should not simply focus on the individual's conduct, but also on the state's conduct during the post-sentencing administration of the sentence, since this conduct can affect the level of censure towards the state. Specifically, relying on her notion of ‘state blame/censure’, which expands communicative theories of punishment, she underscores the importance throughout the punishment process of recognising and accounting for the state's relational and contributory role in the creation of harms as part of the process of censure (Manikis, 2022). This framework of ‘state blame’ is separate and more expansive than, yet complementary to the more traditional notions of blame and censure in criminal law, since it recognises that communicative censure should not merely focus on individual wrongdoing but also on the state's relational wrongdoing and related harms.…”

Section: Theoretical Underpinnings Of Sentence Review In the Context ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article argues that the continuation of unjustifiable harms perpetrated by the state through SIUs justifies the creation of a novel review process for reassessing the sentence to account for state harms and communicate a more accurate censure. This process, referred to as ‘SIU Harms Triggered Sentence Review’, builds on Manikis’ (2022) framework of ‘state blame’ which seeks to qualify the state's wrongdoing and harms by using a novel typology, and review an offender's carceral sentence to convey accurate censure which accounts for the state's blame and related harms. This proposal endeavours to hold the state accountable for unjustified SIU harms and proposes to re-sentence offenders accordingly and provide a response that allows for more accurate censure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first part provides a background on solitary confinement with the limits that relate to the current review process in Canada. The second part presents the paper's theoretical framework, underpinned by Manikis’ (2022) account and typology for state blame and harms. The third part proposes the SIU Harms Triggered Sentence Review and applies this framework to the analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Solitary confinement as state harm: Reimagining sentencing in light of dynamic censure and state blame

Manikis

Doiron

2023

Punishment & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continuous perpetration of unjustified harms by the carceral state through its use of solitary confinement justifies the creation of a novel process of automatic sentence review. This process is necessary to account for such state-perpetrated harms and communicate censure more accurately. This article proposes the use of a communicative theory of punishment developed in sentencing to characterise and account for the state's wrongdoing and harms in the context of a sentence that involves solitary confinement. Specifically, it outlines a justification for an automatic review process of the offender's carceral sentence based on an expanded and relational understanding of censure developed in the literature and proposes a two-step process to implement this review.

show abstract

Section: The Challenges and Harms Of Solitary Confinement: The Canadi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Underpinnings Of Sentence Review In the Context ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Underpinnings Of Sentence Review In the Context ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Solitary confinement as state harm: Reimagining sentencing in light of dynamic censure and state blame

Manikis

Doiron

2023

Punishment & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Social Triage and Exclusions in Community Services for the Criminalized

Quirouette

2023

Social Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines perspectives and practices related to social triage and the exclusion of criminalized and marginalized individuals in community services such as shelters, mental health, substance use, and court supports. Based on two years of fieldwork and interviews with 105 practitioners, I analyze narratives and practices related to working with people described as having (or being) complex, high-needs, or high-risk. I show that individual factors, such as risk, need, or responsivity, are but one type of factor considered when practitioners make decisions about triage or service eligibility. Building from theory about the governance of “risk” and “risky people,” I examine how organizational and systemic factors shape individualized understandings of and responses to risk. I argue that given current practices in under-resourced community supports, triage and resulting exclusions exacerbate social problems and contribute to punitive exclusions, especially for those who seek services, supports, or housing but have records of sexual offense, fire setting, drug use, violence, self-harm or so-called non-compliance. Examining these dynamics bolsters claims that we should shift the responsibilizing gaze upwards to pressure institutional and state bodies who could transform the landscape for practitioners and their clients.

show abstract

Reconstructing Gladue

Ewing,

Kerr

2024

University of Toronto Law Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code directs sentencing judges to exercise restraint in the use of incarceration ‘with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.’ In R v Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted this as a remedial provision aiming to reduce the incarceration of Indigenous people. That has made it appear to be a failure by its own lights. Yet to write off section 718.2(e) and the Gladue principles would be to fail properly to understand their moral foundations and structure. Judges are called upon to reduce the incarceration of Indigenous people neither by working backwards from prison demographic targets nor merely by combating implicit bias. Rather, Gladue requires judges to open their minds to hitherto unappreciated reasons that many Indigenous offenders should be afforded mitigation, restorative justice, and community-based accountability. One reason, we argue, relates to the unfair criminogenic disadvantages disproportionately faced by Indigenous offenders. Another reason is that the Canadian state’s complicity in such disadvantages calls into question its legitimate authority and its standing to blame Indigenous offenders. In sum, Gladue calls upon our courts to widen the horizon of fairness in their treatment of Indigenous people. This matters for its own sake in each and every case, whether or not it brings about an appreciable reduction in Indigenous incarceration in the aggregate. Our reconstruction of Gladue not only rescues it from cynical dismissals but also helps to solve the central doctrinal puzzles surrounding it: how Indigenous offenders’ unique life circumstances must be connected to their offences to be mitigating; how Gladue principles should apply differently to more and less serious offences; how a variant of Gladue principles should be extended to members of other disadvantaged groups such as Black Canadians; and how judges should weigh the interests of Indigenous victims when sentencing Indigenous offenders.

show abstract

Recognising State Blame in Sentencing: A Communicative and Relational Framework

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

Solitary confinement as state harm: Reimagining sentencing in light of dynamic censure and state blame

Solitary confinement as state harm: Reimagining sentencing in light of dynamic censure and state blame

Social Triage and Exclusions in Community Services for the Criminalized

Reconstructing Gladue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About