Understanding the Determinants of Penal Policy: Crime, Culture, and Comparative Political Economy

Lacey, Nicola; Soskice, David; Hope, David

doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091942

Cited by 55 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is to say, the United States has, notoriously, consistently experienced rates of incarceration several times greater than those of its cultural neighbors and comparators, such as Canada and even the United Kingdom (the case with which it is most often bracketed), at least since the 1970s. Explanations for variations in prison populations abound, and certainly exceed our scope here (see, among many, Lacey, ; Lacey & Soskice, ; Lacey, Soskice, & Hope, ). It seems unavoidable that population pressures play a significant role in shaping the decisions of policy makers to experiment with privatizing prisons and other penal sanctions and measures.…”

Section: Privatization Punitiveness and The Question Of How Punishmmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…No doubt the idea of neo‐liberalism is often deployed too broadly and imprecisely in these discussions. Nevertheless, there remain good reasons to think that those contemporary societies most influenced by free‐market ideas, with more deregulated labor markets, less inclusionary social policies, and importantly, more volatile and adversarial political cultures are more likely both to be drawn to expansionist tough‐on‐crime policies (Lacey et al., ) and to market‐based solutions to the resulting steering and capacity problems, such as the privatization of penal institutions and services. Under such conditions, the idea that the state purchases correctional work (in much the same way as it contracts for construction projects or perhaps for aspects of health‐ or social‐care provision) becomes more readily thinkable and comes to be seen as having the distinct advantages of competition and contractual regulation .…”

Section: Privatization Punitiveness and The Question Of How Punishmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Persistent puzzles

Sparks

Gacek

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary:In our article, we attend to the implied outlooks ("philosophies" in the sense of operative practical discourses and assumptions) and the competing ethical concerns that animate differing views on privatizing corrections. We consider some normative arguments and empirical observations that have been mobilized for and against privatization since the inception of the modern version of this debate in the late 1980s, and we seek to place these in the context of accounts of penal problems over that contentious period. We argue that a multidimensional approach to understanding the sociology of punishment and in particular how certain forms of punishment persist, survive, and thrive is required when considering the privatization of corrections. In using such an approach, we raise quizzical questions regarding the pairing together of punishment and privatization, and as a result, we seek to sharpen the discussion about future prospects.Policy Implications: Greater attention must be paid toward public involvement, knowledge, and understanding about penal policies. With particular regard to the involvement of private-sector actors and interests, this has implications both at the initial contract negotiation stages of expanding correctional privatization as well as at the rescission of such contracts. The impact of penal arrangements on the dignity and integrity of offenders-especially but not

show abstract

Section: Privatization Punitiveness and The Question Of How Punishmmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Privatization Punitiveness and The Question Of How Punishmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent puzzles

Sparks

Gacek

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This vein of research is especially important in the contemporary era in which politicians and conservative pundits vigorously pursue a punitive and exclusive strategy to address the immigration issue. The present study hopes to trigger more comparative historical analysis of this topic by broadening understanding of both the broad factors and forces that structure and condition immigration control and the causal mechanisms through which they work (Lacey, Soskice, and Hope ), as well as to stimulate conversation concerning immigrant justice in the wake of globalization and transnational mobility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Punishment and Protection: A Comparative Historical Analysis of American Immigration Control, 1990–2017

Jiang¹

2020

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the construction of immigration control in two US states with contrasting approaches to immigration: the rise of crimmigration and governing through crime in Arizona, and the development of immigrant protection and governing through support in Illinois. Analysis of state-level immigration control practices reveals that three interrelated processes play a critical role in formulating these divergent approaches to managing immigrants: the state's cultural orientation, structural relations, and institutional dynamics. These factors interact with each other in complex, multidirectional ways that condition and shape the respective states' political choices and administrative decisions. I highlight the significance of coalitions of local organizations who work in collaboration with state actors and mobilize state institutions in order to shape state legal regimes of immigration control. In illuminating the variegated trajectories of the construction of immigration control fields, and their use (or nonuse) of penal power as a response, this article provides a more nuanced understanding of the hybrid, dynamic, and contingent nature of immigration control in contemporary America.

show abstract

“…6 Of course, the particular rationalities in a specific setting, and objectively rational choices (at an individual or group level) may coincide in particular cases. 7 See, for example, Jennings et al (2018) and Lacey, Soskice and Hope (2018). 8 'If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences' (Thomas and Thomas 1928, p.572).…”

Section: The Howard League and John Wiley And Sons Ltdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics and Penal Change: Towards an Interpretive Political Analysis of Penal Policymaking

Annison

2018

Howard J Crime Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers an interpretive political analysis framework, exploring and asserting its value for understanding penal change. It is argued that this approach serves, in part, to emphasise the importance of the minutiae of political activity: the crucial impact that apparently minor decisions, unimportant participants, or particular ‘rules of the game’ can play in specific outcomes. It emphasises the importance of human agency and meaning: the relationship between politics and fate. It facilitates the connections of particular ‘micro’ analyses with ‘macro’ accounts of penal change. I argue that the approach set out here thereby enables us to place centre stage the beliefs and practices of policy participants, and the political dynamics of policymaking. By doing so, particular case studies serve as valuable ‘windows’ into the meanings in action that iteratively make sense of, respond to, and thereby (re‐)constitute the realities in which actors operate, specific penal outcomes, and broader penal change.

show abstract

Understanding the Determinants of Penal Policy: Crime, Culture, and Comparative Political Economy

Cited by 55 publications

References 92 publications

Persistent puzzles

Persistent puzzles

The Politics of Punishment and Protection: A Comparative Historical Analysis of American Immigration Control, 1990–2017

Politics and Penal Change: Towards an Interpretive Political Analysis of Penal Policymaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About