scholarly journals Unveiling the Necrocapitalist Dimensions of the Shadow Carceral State: On Pay-to-Stay to Recoup the Cost of Incarceration

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Carceral State ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Legal Construction ◽  
Criminal Justice Contact ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Civil Death

The expansion of monetary sanctions constitutes what Beckett and Murakawa describe as the “shadow carceral state,” where covert penal power is expanded through institutional annexation by blending civil, administrative, and criminal legal authority. A growing body of work on monetary sanctions has begun to dissect covert penal power by tracing increased civil and administrative pipelines to incarceration, civil financial alternatives to criminal sanctions, and innovations to generate criminal justice revenue. However, institutional annexation and innovation in the form of contemporary pay-to-stay practices remain understudied and undertheorized. In this article, I first examine statutes and practices to theorize pay-to-stay as exemplary of the shadow carceral state—an outcome of legal hybridity and institutional annexation legitimated using the legal construction of “not punishment,” which frames monetary sanctions as non-punitive. Second, I expand Beckett and Murakawa’s framework to argue pay-to-stay practices reveal how the shadow carceral state compounds or initiates the civil death of those charged. I broaden our notion of civil death to include financial indebtedness to the shadow carceral state. I suggest covert penal power expands through the accumulation of resources extracted from people marked for civil death through criminal justice contact. Finally, I conclude that monetary sanctions such as pay-to-stay reveal how the shadow carceral state expands covert penal power through necrocapitalism, meaning institutional accumulation occurs through dispossession and the subjugation of life to the power of death.

Transgender Students

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne E. Eckes ◽  
Maria M. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
School Districts ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Cutting Edge ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Student Records ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Transgender Students

Controversies over school policies that impact transgender students have garnered increased attention in recent years. For example, some transgender students have been prohibited from using the restroom that aligns with their gender identity, and others have not been addressed by their preferred names. Thus, in this chapter, we focus on cutting-edge issues that relate specifically to transgender students. In doing so we explore the legal landscape related to transgender student inclusion. We will begin with an overview of relevant research, followed by a presentation of the legal framework and finishing with a discussion of important legal issues, including topics such as access to facilities, privacy, pronouns and student records, athletics, and dress codes. As this chapter will demonstrate, unprecedented efforts in research have revealed alarming inequities experienced by transgender individuals. Concurrently, with some limitations or exceptions, there is a growing body of legal authority that has been successfully relied upon to protect the rights of transgender students. To be certain, the law impacting transgender individuals is multifaceted and evolving. Of notable significance, transgender students who have initiated legal claims against school districts for their discriminatory practices have all ended in favorable outcomes for the students.

THE POSITION OF QANUN 6 OF 2014 ON JINAYAT LAW TOWARD ACT 11 OF 2012 ON JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM RELATED TO CHILD CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Rifqi Qowiyul Iman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
National Level ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Track System ◽  
Double Track ◽  
Rule Out

This paper aims to describe the differences and the position of the legal rules for juvenile crimes between Qanun 6 of 2014 and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System.  This research is descriptive qualitative research. The results show that Qanun Number 6 of 2014 also regulates criminal sanctions for children, which are normatively regulated in Law Number 11 of 2012. In addition, Qanun, as Aceh Islamic criminal law legalizes canning punishment for children, as well as the double-track system adopted by The Law of Juvenile Criminal Justice System is not explicitly accommodated in Qanun. Qanun at the level of a Regional Regulation is part of the hierarchy of laws and regulations that should be in line with what generally applies at the national level. Law Number 11 of 2006 is being the basis of the authority to make Qanun, as long as there is no court decision invalidates it, Qanun Number 6 of 2014, which is a derivative of Law Number 11 of 2006, can be declared as "lex specialis" of The Juvenile Criminal Justice System law which regulates child crime. However, it does not rule out the possibility that in the future, the judicial review of the article can be conducted.

Mobilized by Injustice

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Hannah L. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Political Mobilization ◽  
Racial Group ◽  
Central Mechanism ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Criminal Justice Contact

Chapter 1 introduces many research questions, around which the rest of the volume organized. Under what conditions are individuals mobilized by criminal justice experiences and under what conditions do these experiences lead to demobilization? What is the central mechanism connecting criminal justice contact to political mobilization outcomes? Do mobilization and withdrawal vary by racial group? Lastly, does political mobilization and withdrawal vary by type of activity? Chapter 1 further situates the inquiry in a longer history of resistance around issues related to criminal justice, outlines the methodological approach of the research, and gives an overview of the remainder of the manuscript.

‘Coercive confinement’: An idea whose time has come?

Incarceration ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 263266632093644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian O’Donnell ◽  
Eoin O’Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
The State ◽  
Carceral State ◽  
National Programme

This article argues in favour of ‘coercive confinement’ as a useful addition to the criminological lexicon. It suggests that to properly understand a country’s level of punitiveness requires consideration of a range of institutions that fall outside the remit of the formal criminal justice system. It also requires a generous longitudinal focus. Using Ireland as a case study, such an approach reveals that since the foundation of the state, the prison has gradually become ascendant. This might be read to imply a punitive turn. But when a broader view is taken to include involuntary detention in psychiatric hospitals, confinement in Magdalen homes and mother and baby homes, and detention in industrial and reformatory schools, the trajectory is strongly downward. This might be read to imply a national programme of decarceration. (In recent years, asylum seekers have been held in congregate settings that are experienced as prison-like and they must be factored into the analysis.) While some of these institutions may have been used with peculiar enthusiasm in Ireland, none are Irish inventions. It would be profitable to extend the idea of ‘coercive confinement’ to other nations with a view to adding some necessary nuance to our understanding of the reach and grip of the carceral state.

Modern Control Theory and the Limits of Criminal Justice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gottfredson ◽  
Travis Hirschi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Control Theory ◽  
Problem Behaviors ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Social Control Theory ◽  
Modern Control Theory ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Course Outcomes ◽  
Modern Control

Modern Control Theory and the Limits of Criminal Justice updates and extends the authors’ classic general theory of crime (sometimes referred to as “self-control theory”). In Part I, contemporary evidence about the theory is summarized. Research from criminology, psychology, economics, education, and public health substantially supports the lifelong influence of self control as a significant cause of problem behaviors, including delinquency and crime, substance abuse, school problems, many forms of accidents, employment instability, and many poor health outcomes. Contemporary evidence is supportive of the theory’s focus on early socialization for creation of higher levels of self control and other dimensions of the theory, including the roles of self control, age and the generality or versatility of problem behaviors, as well as the connections between self control and later teen and adult problem behaviors. The book provides methodological assessments of research on the theory, contrasting the control theory perspective with other developmental perspectives in criminology. The role of opportunity, the relationship between self and social control theory, and the role of motivation are addressed. In Part II, control theory is taken to be a valid theory and is used to explore the role of criminal sanctions, especially policing and prisons, and policies about immigration, as methods to impact crime. Modern control theory provides an explanation for the general lack of effectiveness of formal, state sanctions on crime and instead provides substantial justification for prevention of delinquency and crime by a focus on childhood. The theory effectively demonstrates the limits of criminal sanctions and the connection between higher levels of self control and positive life-course outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document