Boganmeldelser

Book review

Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process

This article contends that it is time to take a critical look at a series of binary categories which have dominated the scholarly and reform epistemologies of the sentencing decision process. These binaries are: rules versus discretion; reason versus emotion; offence versus offender; normative principles versus incoherence; aggravating versus mitigating factors; and aggregate/tariff consistency versus individualized sentencing. These binaries underpin both the 'legal-rational' tradition (by which I mean a view of discretion as inherently suspect, a preference for the use of philosophy of punishment justifications and an explanation of the decision process through factors or variables), and also the more recent rise of the 'new penology'. Both approaches tend to rely on 'top-down' assumptions of change, which pay limited attention to the agency of penal workers. The article seeks to develop a conception of sentencing craftwork as a social and interpretive process.1 In so doing, it applies and develops a number of Kritzer's observations (in this issue) about craftwork to sentencing. These craftwork observations are: problem solving (applied to the rules - discretion and reason - emotion dichotomies); skills and techniques (normative penal principles and the use of cognitive analytical assumptions); consistency (tariff versus individualized sentencing); clientele (applied to account giving and the reality of decision making versus expression). By conceiving of sentencing as craftwork, the binary epistemologies of the sentencing decision process, which have dominated (and limited) the scholarly and policy sentencing imaginations, are revealed as dynamic, contingent, and synergistic. However, this is not to say that such binaries are no more than empty rhetoric concealing the reality of the decision process. Rather, these binaries serve as crucial legitimating reference points in the vocabulary of sentencing account giving

Crimmigration and Refugees: Bridging Visas, Criminal Cancellations and ‘Living in the Community’ as Punishment and Deterrence

Australia’s status as the only state with a policy of mandatory indefinite detention of all unlawful non-citizens, including asylum seekers, who are within Australian territory is a fact that is both well-known and frequently cited. From its inception, mandatory immigration detention was touted as ‘the method of deterrence for those seeking asylum onshore’ and since then ‘mandatory detention has been at the forefront of a deterrence as control and control as deterrence discourse’2. The imagined subjects of deterrence are frequently asylum seekers presented as ‘bogus’ or as economic migrants, and the sites for control are Australia’s ‘immigration program’ and borders. While these dual factors have animated the implementation and continuation of the policy for over 25 years, the contemporary practice and enforcement of detention in Australia presents a much more complex picture

Mobilizing in borderline citizenship regimes : a comparative analysis of undocumented migrants’ collective actions

This article seeks to explain how and why groups and networks of undocumented migrants mobilizing in Berlin, Montréal, and Paris since the beginning of the 2000s construct different types of claims. The authors explore the relationship between undocumented migrants and state authorities at the local level through the concept of the citizenship regime and its specific application to undocumented migrants (which they describe as the “borderline citizenship regime”). Despite their common formal exclusion from citizenship, nonstatus migrants experience different degrees and forms of exclusion in their daily lives, in terms of access to certain rights and services, recognition, and belonging within the state (whether through formally or nonformally recognized means). As a result, they have an opportunity to create different, specific forms of leeway in the society in which they live. The concurrence of these different degrees of exclusion and different forms of leeway defines specific conditions of mobilization. The authors demonstrate how the content of their claims is influenced by these conditions of mobilization

Globalization and crime/ Aas

p. 220; 24 c

‘Crimmigrant’ bodies and bona fide travelers: Surveillance, citizenship and global governance

Franko Aas K. Unsichere Identitäten: Biometrie, Grenzen und Staatsbürgerschaft. Egbert S, tran.;

Zemiology at the Border

Considering the global proliferation of the criminalisation of immigrants, it is unsurprising that criminological contributions to the study of borders have been expanding at a prolific rate. Academics and researchers from around the globe have levelled severe criticism of practices such as deportation, detention and arbitrary imprisonment. Indeed, this has been an interesting development to observe in a discipline which is often highly administrative. Significant though this is, the reality of more banal and grinding aspects of seeking asylum which are not necessarily linked to criminalisation - enforced welfare dependency, inadequate housing, violent relationships – often go unseen or under-focussed. Drawing from empirical research in Britain and reflecting on activist participation with women seeking asylum, this chapter argues for a zemiology at the border to centralise the concerns of people seeking sanctuary, and to document the everyday harms of asylum so that they might be mitigated or ultimately eradicated