Criminological+Science+and+Penal+Politics

Garland, D. - //Criminological Science and Penal Politics//

Short Summary: Examines the basis and evolution of the criminological programme, which developed in response to the social crisis of the 1890s and 1900s

· This crisis centered on the dual problem of the social regulation of the poor and the proper role of the state · Identifies 4 major programmes that addressed this crisis: o Criminological programme o Eugenic programme o Social security programme o Social work programme · Depended on new institutional practices, data of experimental research, collection of social data, and particularly on upon the development of the ‘sciences of man’ that took place in Europe during the 19th c. i.e. medicine, psychiatry, genetics //The Criminological Programme:// · Science of criminology developed during last few decades of 19th c. ·  The premises and implications of the early science of criminology continue to underpin the penal institutions and sanctions in nations around the world · A precursor to the science of criminology was ecclesiastical law of penance, which prefigured criminology to focus not upon the individual’s act, but rather the personal state of sin or grace from which the act arose · Another precursor was the utilitarian reformative schemes of men such as Bentham · Unlike these precursors, however, the basis of crime no longer lay in sin or in faulty reasoning, but in an aberration or abnormality of the individual · A historical precursor to criminology’s efforts to trace behaviour patterns back to the physical constitution of the criminal can be seen in an earlier form, physicalism (p.79) · Positivism formed the intellectual basis for the criminological programme · 3 main conditions for genesis of criminology: o Development of statistical data o  Advances in psychiatry o The existence of prison · Prisons provided opportunity for long-term observation and study of criminals · Criminological enterprise based on desire to indentify criminals in order to demarcate the masses against themselves, to specify and enforce divisions to better control the population · Criminology attacked classical philosophical notions of free-will and responsibility – if there is no free will then responsibility and guilt were also problematic, which is why criminology argued that the focus should not be on guilt but rather the on danger an individual poses to society · Criminology argued against uniformity of punishment, individual rights and equality of treatment – there are natural inequalities among humans that require differential treatment of prisoners · Rejected neo-classicist notions of ‘diminished responsibility’ and ‘extenuating circumstances’ · Neo-classicists were seen as taking a compromise position, asking questions in regard to offenders i.e. regarding their degree of responsibility, their mental state, their personality etc. ·  Unity of criminology can be seen in commitment to positivist methods as well as commitment to following positions: o Differentiation o Individualization o Pathology o Correctionalism o Interventionism o Statism · The question that forms the basis of criminology is: “what in fact is the criminal?” · The personality was seen as the basis of individual behaviour, therefore, a criminal act signifies a criminal character from which it sprang · Criminology identifies a ‘criminal character’ which is different from the norm, a pathology · Theoretical phase of criminology is to investigate criminality, and its practical phase is to eliminate criminality from the individual and society itself · Investigation took place through observing and assessing criminals and their behaviour · Elimination could occur through three modes: o Reform of a criminal’s character o Extinguishment, through the execution or segregation of a criminal o Prevented, by altering or eliminating the causes and determinants of criminality · The consistency of the early criminological discourse was as a result of 1) repetition or paraphrasing of earlier work 2) the theoretical implications of the ideological (social problem) basis of the discourse · Criminology assumed the state and the individual were the proper object and subject of study and argued for increased interventionism by the state and a new conception of the individual and the means employed against him/her · Debates within criminology: o Nature/nurture: the influence of the environment v. the individual constitution o Determinism v. free will o Question of eugenic sanctions and their employment against offenders o Individualization v. social element · Criminology’s social implications: o The existence of a class that was constantly criminalized could now be explained in terms of the natural, constitutional propensities of these individuals – providing legitimacy to the state and the law o Criminology’s claim to identify criminality in the bodies of criminals opened up the possibility of an anticipatory form of regulation o The shift in focus from the act to the offender themselves allowed for a more penetrating form of intervention aimed at transforming aspects of character o Little was said about the actual norms that were to be imposed through penal sanctions, it was simply assumed that people coming from similar social background would share a framework of values and ideologies o Criminology placed certain professions above others – it shifted power away from the judiciary to professions such as medicine, psychiatry, forensic science etc. ·  Social support for criminology: o Psychiatrists, police scientists, social scientists, anthropologists etc. o  Organizations concerning themselves with criminal justice and penal reform, often Christian evangelical organizations