Humanising Punishment?
Mitigation and “Case-Cleansing” Prior to Sentencing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1098Palabras clave:
sentenciar, humanización, admisión de culpa, castigo, eficacia judicial, mitigación, trabajo sucioResumen
El objetivo de este artículo es suscitar un nuevo planteamiento sobre el papel de la humanización de la persona que va a ser sentenciada. Al volver la ofensa de la persona algo más comprensible, se supone que la humanización impide el mal trato penal y la gestión mecánica del caso. Lo característico del artículo, sin embargo, es su argumento de que el "trabajo de humanización" también surte profundos efectos latentes. Al resolver la amenaza potencial de que el relato de una persona aparezca en contradicción con su admisión formal de culpa (por ej., declararse culpable), el trabajo de humanización posibilita una disposición eficaz del caso. Aplicando el trabajo de Douglas sobre pureza y polución, y con ilustraciones empíricas, muestro cómo el “trabajo sucio” de humanizar a la persona que va a ser sentenciada depura las ambigüedades problemáticas del caso, de forma que se puede imponer el castigo con confianza. No obstante, el trabajo de humanización también puede facilitar sentimientos penales inclusivos y empáticos, sobre todo si se reduce la distancia comunicativa entre el que sentencia y el que va a ser sentenciado.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 284
Citas
Abbott, A., 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Ashforth, B., and Kreiner, G., 1999 “How can you do it?”: dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review [online], 24(3), 413-434. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202129 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Ashforth, B., and Kreiner, G., 2014. Dirty Work and Dirtier Work: Differences in Countering Physical, Social, and Moral Stigma. Management and Organization Review [online], 10(1), 81-108. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/more.12044 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Bandes, S., 2015. Remorse and Criminal Justice. Emotion Review [online], 8(1), 14-19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1754073915601222 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Bauman, Z., 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bergman Blix, S., and Wettergren, Å., 2018. Professional Emotions in Court: A Sociological Perspective. London: Routledge.
Bibas, S., 2012. The Machinery of Criminal Justice [online]. Oxford University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374681.001.0001 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Bottoms, A., 1995. The Philosophy and Politics of Punishment and Sentencing. In: C. Clarkson and R. Morgan, eds., The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 17-49.
Bottoms, A., and McClean, J., 1976. Defendants in the Criminal Process. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Brown, G., 2017. Criminal Sentencing as Practical Wisdom. Oxford: Hart.
Canton, R., and Dominey, J., 2018. Probation [online]. London: Routledge. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315407029 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Carlen, P., 1976. Magistrates’ Justice. London: Martin Robertson.
Carr, N., and Maguire, N., 2017. Pre-sentence Reports and Individualised Justice: consistency, temporality and contingency. Irish Probation Journal [online], vol. 14, 52-71. Available from: http://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/7764953640C40CBE802581D000400AA6/$File/NicolaCarr_NiamhMaguire_IPJ.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Cohen, S., 2001. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Douglas, M., 2002. Purity and Danger. Reprinted with new preface by author. Abingdon: Routledge. (Originally published in 1966).
Elek, J., 2019. Judicial perspectives on emotion, emotion management, and judicial excellence in the USA. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 9(5-this issue). Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1033 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Field, S., 2006. State, Citizen and Character in French Criminal Process. Journal of Law & Society [online], 33(4), 522-546. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00369.x [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Flynn, A., and Freiberg, A., 2018. Plea Negotiations: Final Report to the Criminology Research Council [online]. April. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Available from: https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/240912398/51_1314_FinalReport.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Garfinkel, H., 1956. Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology [online], 61(5) 420-424. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/221800 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Gelsthorpe, L., Raynor, P., and Robinson, G., 2010. Pre-Sentence Reports in England and Wales: changing discourses of need, risk and quality. In: F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter, eds., Offender Supervision. Milton: Willan, 471-491.
Goffman, E., 1956. Embarrassment and Social Organization. American Journal of Sociology [online], 62(3), 264-271. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/222003 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Gormley, J., and Tata, C., 2019. To Plead or Not to Plead? “Guilt” is the Question. Rethinking Sentencing and Plea Decision-Making in Anglo-American Countries [online]. In: C. Spohn and P. Brennan, eds., Handbook on Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge, chapter 10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027765-11 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Hagan, J., Hewitt, J., and Alwin, D., 1979. Ceremonial justice. Social Forces [online], 58(2), 506-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.2.506 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Heimer, C., 2001. Cases and Biographies: an Essay on Routinization and the Nature of Comparison. Annual Review of Sociology [online], vol. 27, 47-76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.47 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Hochschild, A.R., 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hodgson, J., 2006. Conceptions of the Trial in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure. In: A Duff et al., eds., The Trial on Trial (vol 2): Calling to Account. Oxford: Hart, 223-242.
Horovitz, A., 2007. The Emergence of Sentencing Hearings. Punishment & Society [online], 9(3), 271-299. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474507077495 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Hughes, E., 1951. Work and the self. In: J. Rohrer and M. Sherif, eds., Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Brothers, 313–323.
Hughes, E., 1958. Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hughes, E., 1962. Good People and Dirty Work. Social Problems [online], 10(1), 3-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/799402 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Jacobson, J., Hunter, G., and Kirby, A., 2015. Inside Crown Court: Personal Experiences and Questions of Legitimacy [online]. London: Policy Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89fks [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Jamieson, F., 2019. Judicial Independence: the master narrative in sentencing practice. Criminology & Criminal Justice [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819842940 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Johansen, L., 2018. ‘‘Impressed” by Feelings-How Judges Perceive Defendants’ Emotional Expressions in Danish Courtrooms. Social & Legal Studies [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918764004 [Accessed 22 March 2018].
Levinas, E., 1991. Totality and Infinity. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Originally published in 1961).
Mack, K., and Roach Anleu, S., 2007. Getting through the list: Judgecraft and legitimacy in the lower courts. Social and Legal Studies [online], 16(3), 341–61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079763 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Marshall, T.H., 1939. The Recent History of Professionalism in Relation to Social Structure and Social Policy. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science [online], 5(3), 325-340. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/137036 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Martel, J., 2010. Remorse and the Production of Truth. Punishment & Society [online], 12(4), 414-437. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474510376139 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Maruna, S., and Copes, H., 2005. What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime & Justice [online], vol. 32, 221-320. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/655355 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Mawby, R., and Worrall, A., 2013. Doing Probation Work: Identity in a Criminal Justice Occupation [online]. Abingdon: Routledge. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107409 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
McBarnet, D., 1981. Conviction: The Law, the State and the Construction of Justice. London: Palgrave.
McConville, M., and Marsh, M., 2014. Criminal Judges: Legitimacy, Courts and State-Induced Guilty Pleas in Britain. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McConville, M., et al., 1994. Standing Accused: The Organization and Practices of Criminal Defence Lawyers in Britain [online]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198258681.001.0001 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Meara, H., 1974. Honor in Dirty Work: the case of American meat cutters and Turkish butchers. Work and Occupations [online], 1(3), 259-283. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/073088847400100301 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Morgan, R., 2008. Summary Justice: Fast – but Fair? [online]. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Available from: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/summary-justice-fast-fair [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Mulcahy, A., 1994. The justifications of justice. British Journal of Criminology, [online], 34(4), 411-430. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048444 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Newman, D., 2012. Still Standing Accused: addressing the gap between work and talk in firms of criminal defence lawyers. International Journal of the Legal Profession [online], 19(1), 3-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2012.758039 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Newman, D., and Ugwudike, P., 2013. Defence lawyers and probation officers: offenders’ allies or adversaries? International Journal of the Legal Profession [online], 20(2), 183-207. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2013.833094 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Presser, L., 2003. Remorse and Neutralization among Violent Male Offenders. Justice Quarterly [online], 20(4), 801-825. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095701 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Raynor, P., 1990. Book review: Social Inquiry Reports by Bottoms and Stelman. British Journal of Criminology [online], 30(1), 109-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047970 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2017. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts [online]. London: Palgrave. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52159-0 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2019. A Sociological Perspective on Emotion Work and Judging. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 9(5-this issue). Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1032 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Robinson, G., 2017. Stand-down and deliver: Pre-Sentence Reports, quality and the new culture of speed. Probation Journal [online], 64(4), 337-353. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517734928 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Robinson, G., 2019. Delivering McJustice: the probation factory at the Magistrates’ Court. Criminology & Criminal Justice [online], 19(5), 605–621. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818786997 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Rosecrance, J., 1988. Maintaining the myth of individualized justice. Justice Quarterly [online], 5(2), 235-56. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828800089711 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Rossmanith, K., 2015. Affect and the Judicial Assessment of Offenders: feeling and judging remorse. Body & Society [online], 21(2), 167-193. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X14558073 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Rossmanith, K., 2018. Small Wrongs: How We Really Say Sorry in Love, Life and Law. Richmond, VIC / London: Hardie Grant Books.
Schinkel, M., 2014. Being Imprisoned: Punishment, Adaptation and Desistance [online]. London: Palgrave. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137440839 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Simpson, R., Slutskaya, N., and Hughes, J., 2011. Emotional Dimensions of dirty work: men’s encounter with taint in the butcher trade. International Journal of Work Organisationand Emotion [online], 4(2), 195-212. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWOE.2011.044597 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Sommerlad, H., 2015. The “Social Magic” of Merit. Fordham Law Review [online], 83(5), 2325-2347. Available from: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol83/iss5/7 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Sudnow, D., 1965. Normal Crimes. Social Problems [online], 12(3), 255-276. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/798932 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Tata, C., 2007a. In the Interests of Clients or Commerce? Legal Aid, Supply, Demand, and “Ethical Indeterminacy” in Criminal Defence Work. Journal of Law & Society [online], 34(4), 489-519. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2007.00402.x [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Tata, C., 2007b. Sentencing as “Craftwork” and the Binary Epistemologies of the Discretionary Decision Process. Social & Legal Studies [online], 16(3), 425-447. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079767 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Tata, C., 2010. A Sense of Justice: the role of pre-sentence reports in the production (and disruption) of guilt and guilty pleas. Punishment and Society [online], 12(3), 239-261. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474510371734 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Tata, C., 2019. Ritual Individualization: Creative Genius at Sentencing, Conviction and Mitigation. The Journal of Law & Society [online], 46(1), 112-140. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12144 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Tombs, J., and Jagger, E., 2006. Denying Responsibility: Sentencers’ Accounts of their Decisions to Imprison. British Journal of Criminology [online], 46(5), 803-821. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azl002 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Travers, M., 2016. Business as usual? Bail decision making and “micro politics” in an Australian magistrates court. Law and Social Inquiry [online], 42(2), 325-346. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12264 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Turner, V., 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY / London: Cornell University Press.
Tyler, T., 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice [online], vol. 30, 283-357. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/652233 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Tyler, T., and Huo, Y., 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
van Oorschot, I., Manscini, P., and Weenick, D., 2017. Remorse in Context(s): A Qualitative Exploration of the Negotiation of Remorse and Its Consequences. Social & Legal Studies [online], 26(3), 1-19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663916679039 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Ward, J., 2016. Transforming Summary Justice: Modernisation in the Lower Criminal Court [online]. Abingdon: Routledge. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315727288 [Accessed 8 November 2019].
Weenink, D., 2009. Explaining Ethnic Inequality in the Juvenile Justice System: an analysis of the outcomes of Dutch prosecutorial decision-making. British Journal of Criminology [online], 49(2), 220-242. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn078 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Weisman, R., 2009. Being and Doing: The Judicial Use of Remorse to Construct Character and Community. Social & Legal Studies [online], 18(1), 47-69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663908100333 [Accessed 5 March 2019].
Weisman, R., 2014. Showing Remorse: Law and the Social Control of Emotion. Abingdon: Routledge.
Winnick, B., and Wexler. D., 2003. Judging in a Therapeutic Key. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2019 Cyrus Tata
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
