Humanising Punishment?
Mitigation and “Case-Cleansing” Prior to Sentencing
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1098Gako-hitzak:
Sentencing, humanisation, guilty pleas, punishment, court efficiency, mitigation, Mary Douglas, dirty workLaburpena
The purpose of this article is to stimulate new thinking about the role of the humanisation of the person to be sentenced. By rendering the person’s offending more comprehensible, humanisation is assumed to obstruct harsh penal treatment and mechanical case-disposal. Distinctively, however, this article argues that “humanisation work” also achieves profound latent effects. By resolving the potential threat of a person’s own account appearing to be at odds with her formal admission of guilt (e.g. guilty plea), humanisation work enables efficient case-disposal. Applying Douglas’ work on purity and pollution, and with empirical illustrations, I show how the “dirty work” of humanising the person to be sentenced cleanses cases of troubling ambiguities, making punishment easier to impose with confidence. Nevertheless, humanisation work can, especially if the communicative distance between sentencer and the person sentenced is reduced, also be a facilitator of inclusive and empathic penal sentiments.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 284
Erreferentziak
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.
##submission.downloads##
Argitaratuta
##submission.howToCite##
Zenbakia
Atala
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-nd4.footer##OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
