31.738
Bearbeitungen
Abolitionism-s: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
→Discussion
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 71: | Zeile 71: | ||
:"..there are 'rebellions' which are not rebellions, but great revolutions, and thre are 'rebels' who, however absolutely their immediate purpose may have failed, and however unjustly contemporary historey may have recoreded their actions, shall yet be known to posterity as patriots pure and lofty, whose motives and deeds shall evokte the admiration of all succeeding times" (Nelson Page, cited by Aptheker 1966: 110). | :"..there are 'rebellions' which are not rebellions, but great revolutions, and thre are 'rebels' who, however absolutely their immediate purpose may have failed, and however unjustly contemporary historey may have recoreded their actions, shall yet be known to posterity as patriots pure and lofty, whose motives and deeds shall evokte the admiration of all succeeding times" (Nelson Page, cited by Aptheker 1966: 110). | ||
The moral vs. the economic view of how and why abolition came about | #The moral vs. the economic view of how and why abolition came about | ||
The ideological conflict: equality vs. diversity (separate, but equal) | #The ideological conflict: equality vs. diversity (separate, but equal) | ||
Diversity and verticality (John C. Calhoun, 1782-1850): slavery as „a good – a great good“; the destructive potential of liberty and equality ideals; liberty was not a universal right but should be 'reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving.' Signs of this today? Explaining political rhetoric as bridging the gap. | #Diversity and verticality (John C. Calhoun, 1782-1850): slavery as „a good – a great good“; the destructive potential of liberty and equality ideals; liberty was not a universal right but should be 'reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving.' Signs of this today? Explaining political rhetoric as bridging the gap. | ||
The greates revolution in human history? | #The greates revolution in human history? | ||
Gradualism vs. Abolitionism: relative merits (Donald Black; moral time; were they right after all? Less human suffering with gradualism than with abolitionism? Another contradiction: abolitionist compression of moral time is needed to provide the motivational force for estab-lishing the visible illegitimacy of slavery, but the same fervor produces strife and bloodshed and wounds that do not heal). If gradualism is distinct from abolitionism, what does that say about the right of today’s critics of the prison system to call themselves (or be called) | #Gradualism vs. Abolitionism: relative merits (Donald Black; moral time; were they right after all? Less human suffering with gradualism than with abolitionism? Another contradiction: abolitionist compression of moral time is needed to provide the motivational force for estab-lishing the visible illegitimacy of slavery, but the same fervor produces strife and bloodshed and wounds that do not heal). If gradualism is distinct from abolitionism, what does that say about the right of today’s critics of the prison system to call themselves (or be called) abolitionists? | ||
#The role of morality. Slavery was considered cruel and inhuman. The arguments were moral in nature, not consequentialist or utilitarian, even though such considera-tions did play a supportive role. The same holds true for the abolitionist campaigns against the death penalty. This type of punishment is considered the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrad-ing punishment by organizations such as Amnesty International. Abolitionism is inextricably linked to thinking the Absolute. Therefore, the term abolition is found most frequently togeth-er with adjectives such as radical, total, unconditional, complete, instant, immediate, and the like. | |||
===Reading=== | |||
*Hochschild, Adam (2005) Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves. Hough-ton-Mifflin | |||
:About this book (Robin White in The Guardian): In just a few years at the end of the 18th century, a small group of men (and one woman) took on the vested interests of state, church and big business - and won. .. There was Granville Sharp, a royal musi-cian who rescued a slave, Jonathan Strong, who had been brought to London by his master and so badly beaten up that he nearly died. Sharp went to court and had the slave freed. There was James Steven, a philanderer whose law studies had been financed by an uncle who bought sick slaves, cheaply, and oiled and fattened them up for resale. There was Olaudah Equiano, an eloquent, freed Igbo slave, who gatecrashed London society and wrote bestselling books about his own experiences. .. But above all there was the abolitionist's most tireless worker, Thomas Clarkson. He was a giant of a man, more than 6ft tall, with striking red hair. Clarkson sprang into prominence when he entered, and won, England's top Latin essay competition. His chosen subject was the slave trade and his tract became famous. For the rest of his life he rode and walked the length of Britain (and quite a lot of France, too) addressing meetings, writing pamphlets, collecting signatures on petitions, and compiling a wealth of evidence on the horrors of the slave trade. . With the help of the Quakers (the only religious group to campaign wholeheartedly against the trade) Clarkson founded the all-white anti-slavery committee in 1787 at 18 Old Jewry, in the heart of the City of London. Initially they had spectacular successes. Slavery became the cause of the day. Newspapers took it up. It was the most discussed subject in London's popular debating societies. Just about every town and city in the country organised petitions on scrolls. One hundred and three were sent to parliament with 60,000 signatures. One scroll stretched the entire length of the debating chamber. -But when it came to votes in parliament, even the tiny but eloquent Wilberforce couldn't win the day. The 18th century may have been the age of enlightenment but there was a limited franchise and MPs did not need to respond to the wishes of the masses. Those who benefited from the slave trade fought back, employing lobby groups, bribing politicians and journalists. Wilberforce lost the debate by 163 votes to 88. It was a humbling experience, because it was not even a vote to abolish slavery as a whole, just the trade in slaves. (The argument was that if the human traffic could be stopped, then slavery itself would eventually wither and die.) Clarkson and his friends were not discouraged. There was a nationwide sugar boycott - sugar sales dropped by a third. William Pitt, the prime minister, was enlisted on their side, and he spoke on the abolitionists' behalf in the second parliamentary debate a year later. But vested interests and those who argued that if Britain banned the trade then France would cash in again triumphed. (Then big politics distracted public attention and the conditions of slaves got worse instead of better. Later on, though) electoral reform was in the air, and women's voices were beginning to be heard. The loudest was that of Elizabeth Heyrick, a former teacher and convert to the Quakers. In 1824 she published a pamhlet entitled "Immediate Not Gradual Abolition". Not for her the banning of the slave trade - she wanted all slavery ended for ever. Meanwhile, British soldiers, sent to the Caribbean to suppress slave revolts, returned home with a true picture of the evils of slavery. Their voices added to the clamour. The tide was finally turned and the emancipation bill was passed in 1833. But the victory was a tarnished one: as part of the deal, parliament agreed to pay £20m in compensation, not to slaves but to the slave owners. | |||
==Prostitution== | |||
===History=== | |||
The abolition of slavery was still a topic of the day, when Josephine Butler (1828-1906) helped create the very same moral outrage and collective action to abolish a different kind of legal oppression. As an upper-class progressive Christian feminist she was especially con-cerned with the welfare of prostitutes, leading a long campaign for the repeal of the Conta-gious Diseases Acts from 1869 to 1886. | The abolition of slavery was still a topic of the day, when Josephine Butler (1828-1906) helped create the very same moral outrage and collective action to abolish a different kind of legal oppression. As an upper-class progressive Christian feminist she was especially con-cerned with the welfare of prostitutes, leading a long campaign for the repeal of the Conta-gious Diseases Acts from 1869 to 1886. | ||
These acts had been introduced (1864, 1866, 1869) to control the spread of venereal diseases among the military personnel, giving magistrates the power to order genital examinations of prostitutes for symptoms of VD, and to detain infected women in a closed institution (lock hospital) for up to three months; to refuse the examination meant imprisonment. Police had the power over women: it was sufficient for a police officer to accuse a woman of prostitution to make magistrates order an examination. An accusation was enough to make women lose their livelihoods. | These acts had been introduced (1864, 1866, 1869) to control the spread of venereal diseases among the military personnel, giving magistrates the power to order genital examinations of prostitutes for symptoms of VD, and to detain infected women in a closed institution (lock hospital) for up to three months; to refuse the examination meant imprisonment. Police had the power over women: it was sufficient for a police officer to accuse a woman of prostitution to make magistrates order an examination. An accusation was enough to make women lose their livelihoods. | ||
Escalation: In 1869, the "Association for the Extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts" was formed to campaign to extend their operation beyond specified ports and garrison towns, leading to vehement opposition from Christians, feminists and supporters of civil liberty and to the setting up of the Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Later, male supporters were also allowed, and despite vilification and occasional physical assaults on Mrs. Butler, and the Acts were repealed in 1886. | Escalation: In 1869, the "Association for the Extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts" was formed to campaign to extend their operation beyond specified ports and garrison towns, leading to vehement opposition from Christians, feminists and supporters of civil liberty and to the setting up of the Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Later, male supporters were also allowed, and despite vilification and occasional physical assaults on Mrs. Butler, and the Acts were repealed in 1886. | ||
===Discussion=== | |||
What is the real abolition: that of repressive laws against prostitutes or that of prostitution as such? | What is the real abolition: that of repressive laws against prostitutes or that of prostitution as such? | ||
Those who advocate the abolition of prostitution speak of “white slavery”. They find it mis-guided to speak of abolitionism and to attack laws regulating prostitution. Rather, they want to reserve the term to efforts against prostitution proper. | Those who advocate the abolition of prostitution speak of “white slavery”. They find it mis-guided to speak of abolitionism and to attack laws regulating prostitution. Rather, they want to reserve the term to efforts against prostitution proper. | ||
Who is right? And why? | Who is right? And why? | ||
===Reading=== | |||
Miriam, Kathy (2005) Stopping the Traffic in Women: Power, Agency and Abolition in Feminist Debates over Sex-Trafficking. Journal of Social Philosophy. Volume 36, 1, 1–17 | Miriam, Kathy (2005) Stopping the Traffic in Women: Power, Agency and Abolition in Feminist Debates over Sex-Trafficking. Journal of Social Philosophy. Volume 36, 1, 1–17 | ||
Moore, Roderick (1993) Josephine Butler (1828-1906). Feminist, Christian, and Libertarian. London: Libertarian Alliance | Moore, Roderick (1993) Josephine Butler (1828-1906). Feminist, Christian, and Libertarian. London: Libertarian Alliance | ||
==Death Penalty== | |||
===History=== | |||
Until the mid-18th century a very wide range of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death (Black Act, 1723). Evidently, for political reasons, the punishment was not always enforced. Later in the 18th century, though, a marked shift transformed European values; humanitarianism and the ideal of moral progress of the human race began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. | Until the mid-18th century a very wide range of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death (Black Act, 1723). Evidently, for political reasons, the punishment was not always enforced. Later in the 18th century, though, a marked shift transformed European values; humanitarianism and the ideal of moral progress of the human race began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. | ||
1721 Montesquieu | 1721 Montesquieu | ||
| Zeile 112: | Zeile 111: | ||
2014 Two thirds of all countries have abolished the death penalty. Two thirds of mankind live in countries with death penalty. 140 countries do not apply the death penalty. 58 countries are retentionist. | 2014 Two thirds of all countries have abolished the death penalty. Two thirds of mankind live in countries with death penalty. 140 countries do not apply the death penalty. 58 countries are retentionist. | ||
===Protagonists, Milestones, and Setbacks=== | |||
U.S.A.: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP). Founded in 1976. More than 100 affiliate organizations. Today, 18 States of the USA are death penalty-free. | U.S.A.: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP). Founded in 1976. More than 100 affiliate organizations. Today, 18 States of the USA are death penalty-free. | ||
Amnesty International (2014): 98 countries have abolished the death penalty completely. 7 retain it for exceptional cases (war); 35 have abolished it in praxi, but not de lege. | Amnesty International (2014): 98 countries have abolished the death penalty completely. 7 retain it for exceptional cases (war); 35 have abolished it in praxi, but not de lege. | ||
| Zeile 128: | Zeile 127: | ||
In the advertisement, Mr. Trump says that Mayor Edward I. Koch ''has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts.'' ''I want to hate these muggers and murderers,'' Mr. Trump wrote. ''They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.'' | In the advertisement, Mr. Trump says that Mayor Edward I. Koch ''has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts.'' ''I want to hate these muggers and murderers,'' Mr. Trump wrote. ''They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.'' | ||
===Reading=== | |||
Evans, Richard (1996) Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany, 1600-1987. Oxford University Press | Evans, Richard (1996) Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany, 1600-1987. Oxford University Press | ||
Garland, David (2010) Peculiar Institution. America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. OUP/Harvard Uni-versity Press | Garland, David (2010) Peculiar Institution. America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. OUP/Harvard Uni-versity Press | ||
==Prisons== | |||
===Protagonists, Milestones, Setbacks=== | |||
(1) GIP and Michel Foucault; ICOPA, KROM, KRIM, KRAK and Thomas Mathiesen | (1) GIP and Michel Foucault; ICOPA, KROM, KRIM, KRAK and Thomas Mathiesen | ||
No concrete alternatives. Deus absconditus. Negative reform. Unfinished. What is an alterna-tive to prisons? Any contradiction in means and/or ends. Focus on victim instead of offender? | No concrete alternatives. Deus absconditus. Negative reform. Unfinished. What is an alterna-tive to prisons? Any contradiction in means and/or ends. Focus on victim instead of offender? | ||
| Zeile 140: | Zeile 139: | ||
Proposals for prison reform and proposed alternatives to prisons differ significantly depending on the political beliefs behind them. Proposals and tactics often include: | Proposals for prison reform and proposed alternatives to prisons differ significantly depending on the political beliefs behind them. Proposals and tactics often include: | ||
Penal system reforms (substituting, for incarceration, supervised release, probation, restitu-tion to victims, and/or community work; decreasing terms of imprisonment by abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing; decreasing ethnic disparity in prison populations), Prison condition reforms; Abolition of specific laws that increase prison populations (drug laws, sex work laws, alcohol restrictions); fighting wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project. | Penal system reforms (substituting, for incarceration, supervised release, probation, restitu-tion to victims, and/or community work; decreasing terms of imprisonment by abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing; decreasing ethnic disparity in prison populations), Prison condition reforms; Abolition of specific laws that increase prison populations (drug laws, sex work laws, alcohol restrictions); fighting wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project. | ||
Abolitionist views according to Wikipedia: | |||
In place of prisons, some abolitionists propose community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies to control the problem of social crime. They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish. A large part of the problem, according to some, is the way the judicial system deals with prisoners, people and capital. They argue that there would be fewer prisoners if society treated people more fairly, regardless of gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, etc. | :Abolitionist views according to Wikipedia: In place of prisons, some abolitionists propose community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies to control the problem of social crime. They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish. A large part of the problem, according to some, is the way the judicial system deals with prisoners, people and capital. They argue that there would be fewer prisoners if society treated people more fairly, regardless of gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, etc. | ||
Arguments made for prison abolition can also be made for making prisons more just: | Arguments made for prison abolition can also be made for making prisons more just: | ||
(1) Lack of proper legal representation: Eighty percent of people accused of crimes [in the United States] are unable to afford a lawyer to defend them." The US Supreme Court held in 1963 that a poor person facing felony charges "cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." | (1) Lack of proper legal representation: Eighty percent of people accused of crimes [in the United States] are unable to afford a lawyer to defend them." The US Supreme Court held in 1963 that a poor person facing felony charges "cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." | ||
| Zeile 163: | Zeile 163: | ||
Abolitionism needs to be expanded to questions of „pain infliction“, discrimination, in general: damage done by the state. Can imprisonment be reconciled with human rights? Since in Europe imprisonment and punishment is concentrated on „foreigners“, what is it that makes the status of „foreigner“ so open to infringement of rights and fair treatment? Abolitionisms needs to be expanded to questions of citizenship and human rights in war and peace. Has one of the technocratic arguments against imprisonment been refuted? If not, how come we can – in a time of quality management and evaluation – afford such a monstrous error? Is it because the fantasy is we can get rid of certain people for good (by prison or by transportation)? Do societies and states foster eliminatory fantasies again? If so, do we understand why there are no other ideas for possible solutions of the problems brought about by the present mode of production? Can we provide some? Abolitionism needs to be expanded to questions of how this mode of production works. | Abolitionism needs to be expanded to questions of „pain infliction“, discrimination, in general: damage done by the state. Can imprisonment be reconciled with human rights? Since in Europe imprisonment and punishment is concentrated on „foreigners“, what is it that makes the status of „foreigner“ so open to infringement of rights and fair treatment? Abolitionisms needs to be expanded to questions of citizenship and human rights in war and peace. Has one of the technocratic arguments against imprisonment been refuted? If not, how come we can – in a time of quality management and evaluation – afford such a monstrous error? Is it because the fantasy is we can get rid of certain people for good (by prison or by transportation)? Do societies and states foster eliminatory fantasies again? If so, do we understand why there are no other ideas for possible solutions of the problems brought about by the present mode of production? Can we provide some? Abolitionism needs to be expanded to questions of how this mode of production works. | ||
===Discussion=== | |||
How successful has prison abolition been? Does the prison fit the abolitionist moral catego-ries? What is the future of prisons: expansion or oblivion? Utilitarianism vs. Rigorism What about this wikepdia definition of the prison abolition movement?: | How successful has prison abolition been? Does the prison fit the abolitionist moral catego-ries? What is the future of prisons: expansion or oblivion? Utilitarianism vs. Rigorism What about this wikepdia definition of the prison abolition movement?: | ||
The prison abolition movement is a movement that seeks to reduce or eliminate prisons and the prison system, and replace them with more humane and effective systems. It is distinct from prison reform, which is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons; however, relying on prisons less can signifi-cantly improve their conditions by eliminating overcrowding.- Some organizations such as the Anarchist Black Cross seek total abolishment of the prison system, not intending to replace it with other govern-ment controlled systems. Anarchist organizations believe that the best form of justice arises naturally out of social contracts. However, many supporters for prison abolition intend to replace it with other systems, reducing prisons to a smaller role in society. | The prison abolition movement is a movement that seeks to reduce or eliminate prisons and the prison system, and replace them with more humane and effective systems. It is distinct from prison reform, which is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons; however, relying on prisons less can signifi-cantly improve their conditions by eliminating overcrowding.- Some organizations such as the Anarchist Black Cross seek total abolishment of the prison system, not intending to replace it with other govern-ment controlled systems. Anarchist organizations believe that the best form of justice arises naturally out of social contracts. However, many supporters for prison abolition intend to replace it with other systems, reducing prisons to a smaller role in society. | ||
| Zeile 169: | Zeile 169: | ||
Sweden has closed 4 prisons lately. What does that mean? | Sweden has closed 4 prisons lately. What does that mean? | ||
===Reading=== | |||
Christie, Nils (1994/2013) Crime control as industry. London: Routledge | Christie, Nils (1994/2013) Crime control as industry. London: Routledge | ||
Davis, Angela (1999) The Prison Industrial Complex, CD-ROM (Audiobook), AK Press | Davis, Angela (1999) The Prison Industrial Complex, CD-ROM (Audiobook), AK Press | ||
| Zeile 176: | Zeile 176: | ||
Religious Society of Friends. Minute on Prison Abolition Approved by the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends in 1981 (Minute 93) | Religious Society of Friends. Minute on Prison Abolition Approved by the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends in 1981 (Minute 93) | ||
==Penal Law, Criminal Justice, Punishment== | |||
===History=== | |||
Penal law, criminal justice, and punishment by state organs seem to be a necessary evil to most people, let alone politicians. They seem natural and therefore eternal. | Penal law, criminal justice, and punishment by state organs seem to be a necessary evil to most people, let alone politicians. They seem natural and therefore eternal. | ||
It is intriguing to see how even the most peaceful visions of a perfect society seem unable to exclude crime and punishment from their sketches of utopia. | It is intriguing to see how even the most peaceful visions of a perfect society seem unable to exclude crime and punishment from their sketches of utopia. | ||
| Zeile 193: | Zeile 193: | ||
To him, so-called crimes should not be analyzed within the framework of the crime discourse, but the discourse itself should be subjected to analysis. So, for him, “crimes” were just one kind of problematic situations among others, and he questioned the reasons for separating them from other problematic situations. This lent itself to jokes about him, but this was his revolutionary contribution, a contribution still to be spelled out, and to taken to action. | To him, so-called crimes should not be analyzed within the framework of the crime discourse, but the discourse itself should be subjected to analysis. So, for him, “crimes” were just one kind of problematic situations among others, and he questioned the reasons for separating them from other problematic situations. This lent itself to jokes about him, but this was his revolutionary contribution, a contribution still to be spelled out, and to taken to action. | ||
===Discussion=== | |||
Is René van Swaaningen right when he states: | Is René van Swaaningen right when he states: | ||
First, I like to stress that abolitionism’s positive, reconstructive message has been taken up by various other perspectives. I see very clear traces of abolitionist thought in ‘restorative justice’ (Braithwaite, etc.), peacemaking criminology (Pepinsky, etc.), the ‘social harm’ approach (Hillyard, etc.), constitutive criminology (Henry & Milovanov-ic). | :First, I like to stress that abolitionism’s positive, reconstructive message has been taken up by various other perspectives. I see very clear traces of abolitionist thought in ‘restorative justice’ (Braithwaite, etc.), peacemaking criminology (Pepinsky, etc.), the ‘social harm’ approach (Hillyard, etc.), constitutive criminology (Henry & Milovanov-ic). The ‘penal core’ of abolitionism has got under serious pressure in the ‘punitive turn’ in many Western countries, notably in the Netherlands; the country with the largest in-crease in imprisonment in the whole world – albeit we started at a very low level. In a climate where a punitive populism rules traditional penal abolitionism is easily dis-carded as loony idealism. So, many (previous) abolitionists have changed their focus a bit, by first arguing against punitiveness as such. The literature on ‘the new punitive-ness’ can be seen as a reformulation of abolitionism’s negative critique. As an academic perspective abolitionism was in a way ‘not good enough’: it was often theoretically sloppy, there was little sound empirical research done in the tradition and the moralistic undertone was often too dominant. At least my students are no longer used to normative, prescriptive discourse and even get irritated when ‘science’ is mixed up with moralism; particularly Left wing moralism. We can still get the aboli-tionist message across amongst the present generation students, I think, but we have to use another tone than 25 years ago: less ‘standpoint criminology’, more practical, em-pirical arguments, more connection with concrete policy debates and with different criminological debates (in: Feest & Paul 2008). | ||
The ‘penal core’ of abolitionism has got under serious pressure in the ‘punitive turn’ in many Western countries, notably in the Netherlands; the country with the largest in-crease in imprisonment in the whole world – albeit we started at a very low level. In a climate where a punitive populism rules traditional penal abolitionism is easily dis-carded as loony idealism. So, many (previous) abolitionists have changed their focus a bit, by first arguing against punitiveness as such. The literature on ‘the new punitive-ness’ can be seen as a reformulation of abolitionism’s negative critique. | |||
As an academic perspective abolitionism was in a way ‘not good enough’: it was often theoretically sloppy, there was little sound empirical research done in the tradition and the moralistic undertone was often too dominant. At least my students are no longer used to normative, prescriptive discourse and even get irritated when ‘science’ is mixed up with moralism; particularly Left wing moralism. We can still get the aboli-tionist message across amongst the present generation students, I think, but we have to use another tone than 25 years ago: less ‘standpoint criminology’, more practical, em-pirical arguments, more connection with concrete policy debates and with different criminological debates (in: Feest & Paul 2008). | *Does the criminal law protect? What is the relevance of the dark figures? | ||
Does the criminal law protect? What is the relevance of the dark figures? | |||
What is the moral ground for and against criminal justice? | What is the moral ground for and against criminal justice? | ||
What makes it difficult to argue for the abolition of the criminal justice system? | What makes it difficult to argue for the abolition of the criminal justice system? | ||
Hegel and the negation of the negation of law | Hegel and the negation of the negation of law | ||
===Reading=== | |||
De Folter, Rolf S. (1986) On the methodological foundation of the abolitionist approach to the criminal justice system. A comparison of the ideas of Hulsman, Mathiesen and Foucault. Contemporary Crises 10: 39-62. | De Folter, Rolf S. (1986) On the methodological foundation of the abolitionist approach to the criminal justice system. A comparison of the ideas of Hulsman, Mathiesen and Foucault. Contemporary Crises 10: 39-62. | ||
Deleuze, Gilles (1990 and 1993) Postskriptum über die Kontrollgesellschaften. In: Deleuze, Gilles: Unterhand-lungen. 1972-1990, Frankfurt am Main 1993 | Deleuze, Gilles (1990 and 1993) Postskriptum über die Kontrollgesellschaften. In: Deleuze, Gilles: Unterhand-lungen. 1972-1990, Frankfurt am Main 1993 | ||
| Zeile 211: | Zeile 210: | ||
Von Trotha, Trutz (1983) Limits to Pain. Diskussionsbeitrag zu einer Abhandlung von Nils Christie. In: Krimi-nologisches Journal, Heft 1/1983, S. 34- 53 | Von Trotha, Trutz (1983) Limits to Pain. Diskussionsbeitrag zu einer Abhandlung von Nils Christie. In: Krimi-nologisches Journal, Heft 1/1983, S. 34- 53 | ||
==Further Reading== | |||
Bianchi, Herman Th. (1994) Justice As Sanctuary: Toward a New System of Crime Control. Bloomington: Indiana University Press | Bianchi, Herman Th. (1994) Justice As Sanctuary: Toward a New System of Crime Control. Bloomington: Indiana University Press | ||
Christie, Nils (2009) Restorative Justice: Five Dangers Ahead. In: Paul Knepper, Jonathan Doak, and Joanna Shapland, eds., Urban Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and Restorative Justice. Effects of Social Technologies. CRC Press: 195-203 | Christie, Nils (2009) Restorative Justice: Five Dangers Ahead. In: Paul Knepper, Jonathan Doak, and Joanna Shapland, eds., Urban Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and Restorative Justice. Effects of Social Technologies. CRC Press: 195-203 | ||