Depression and repression: Global capitalism, economic crisis and penal politics in interwar Greece

Notwithstanding the significant advances made over the last twenty years in terms of charting and explaining the ways in which state punishment is influenced by economic and political forces, little is still known about the penal effects of conditions of economic crisis and about the role the incumbent government's political orientation plays in this regard. Because the few available studies on these questions have been preoccupied with the Anglo-American sphere and only in the context of recent decades at that, even less is known either about the implications that different types or experiences of economic crisis carry for state punishment, or about the influence exerted in this respect by government political orientations other than those found in established democracies. Irrespective of geographical or temporal scope, moreover, the impact that different extranational factors and actors may have in terms of economic, political or directly penal matters domestically remains poorly understood. With a view to helping fill these gaps in the literature, this article explores the effects on state punishment that economic crisis and government political orientation had in interaction with one another in the context of interwar Greece. Attention is first paid to various ways in which global capitalism was decisive in creating within Greece an environment conducive to increased punitiveness on the part of the state. The focus is on the economic, social and political consequences of the Wall Street crash of 1929 and Britain's exit from the gold standard in 1931, as these were exacerbated by Greece's long-term exposure to predatory lending, speculative investing and external interference in her domestic affairs in the context of engaging international capital markets. The article then proceeds to discuss how the Liberal government of 1928–1932 sought to handle the situation, particularly the approach it took towards punishment.

Distributing Responsibility—State Compensation and State Punishment

This chapter considers two implications for public international law of the model developed in chapter 5 for distributing state responsibility. First, it critically examines the landmark United Nations Compensation Commission, which extracted compensation from Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War. It shows that this scheme was not sufficiently sensitive to Iraq’s authoritarian regime characteristics and imposed unfair burdens on ordinary citizens. It then examines solutions that should have been used instead. Second, it assesses the implications for the idea of state punishment. Focusing on two influential justifications of punishment—the expressive view and the duties to victim’s view—it demonstrates how the proposed framework should shape the way we punish states.

Why Blame?

Ever since her first book, State Punishment, a recurring theme of Nicola Lacey’s scholarship has been a hesitancy about blame—what it is for, how to assign it, and whether to let it take hold. In her later work, Lacey has disaggregated the problem of blame from the problem of responsibility, and explored ways in which responsibility could be assigned without blaming. Her suggestions have centred on the possibility of forgiveness. I admire Lacey’s humane instinct in urging us to do less blaming. However I do not think that this instinct is all that is at work in her recurring doubts about blame. For it is possible to embrace forgiveness while holding those one forgives to be blameworthy? Arguably, indeed, forgiveness presupposes blameworthiness. The deeper puzzle is about blameworthiness itself. What is it for? Why does it matter? What is its place in the architecture of the human condition? It is no answer to say that blameworthiness matters because responsibility matters. There is responsibility without blameworthiness, and responsibility matters for reasons that have nothing to do with blameworthiness. Nor is it an answer to say that blameworthiness matters because blaming matters. Only when one works out why it matters that someone is blameworthy does one begin to show why people should ever do any blaming. Or so I will argue. I will suggest that the importance of blameworthiness is genuinely mysterious. That position is associated with Bernard Williams. I think that some of Williams’ worries are shared by Lacey. However, I will suggest that, in light of my remarks, they are not exactly the right worries.

Re-writing punishment? Songs and narrative problem-solving

This article analyses findings from the Economic and Social Research Council/Arts and Humanities Research Council (ESRC/AHRC)-funded ‘Distant Voices – Coming Home’ project (ES/POO2536/1), which uses creative methods to explore crime, punishment and reintegration. Focusing on songs co-written in Scottish prisons, we argue that the songs serve to complicate and substantiate our grasp of what state punishment does to people, as well as perhaps affording their prison-based co-writers both moments and modalities of resistance to dominant narratives within criminal justice. In doing so, they creatively express and explore affective and perhaps even unconscious aspects of the self. We argue that our work contributes to a more expansive and considered treatment of narrative in criminology; one that admits and engages with a more diverse and creative range of expressions of experience and selfhood, all of them partial and some of them contradictory. By attending to diverse kinds of narratives embodied in these songs, we learn more about what criminalisation, penalisation and incarceration do to people and to their stories.

11. Prison Sentences and Punishment

This chapter assesses whether the state should shorten the length of prison sentences, exploring the justification for state punishment. It argues in favour of shorter prison sentences, drawing on the idea that an individual who commits a crime has a remedial duty to those they have wronged, and that one way to discharge this duty is by spending time in prison in order to deter future crime. This justification for punishment supports shorter prison sentences because the beneficial effect of longer prison sentences on crime rates is too low to justify the burdens they impose. The chapter then considers a retributivist objection, which claims that the state should favour longer prison sentences because an individual who commits a crime deserves to suffer. Concerns about retribution are unable to justify the high costs of the prison system and, more fundamentally, they provide an unattractive justification for all forms of punishment. The chapter also discusses the appeal and relevance of a communicative account of punishment, according to which the state should punish an individual who commits a crime in order to condemn their actions.

EVOLUTION OF PUNISHMENT IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW:PROBLEMS OF CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENT

The article analyzes the evolution of punishment in Russian criminal law and scientific doctrine. The article considers the dynamics of development and improvement of the definition of punishment in the Soviet and Russian criminal legislation. The refusal of punishment in punishment is analyzed, which is explained by the development of several trends of mitigation of punishment. Changes in many provisions on punishment confirm that this institution has a social and legal necessity and importance for society and the state. Is considered a long process of exclusion from the punishment uncharacteristic of regulations and the formation of the criminal code of legal structure, where the punishment has ceased to be an obligatory consequence of the crime, as embodied and other measures of criminal-legal nature, like legal consequences of the crime. The essence of criminal punishment is recognized as a historically variable category, since it is determined by the objectives of criminal policy implemented by the state. Punishment includes legal restriction of the person, its rights and freedoms, but it is caused by system interaction with other measures of criminal-legal character.

EVOLUTION OF PUNISHMENT IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW:PROBLEMS OF CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENT

The article analyzes the evolution of punishment in Russian criminal law and scientific doctrine. The article considers the dynamics of development and improvement of the definition of punishment in the Soviet and Russian criminal legislation. The refusal of punishment in punishment is analyzed, which is explained by the development of several trends of mitigation of punishment. Changes in many provisions on punishment confirm that this institution has a social and legal necessity and importance for society and the state. Is considered a long process of exclusion from the punishment uncharacteristic of regulations and the formation of the criminal code of legal structure, where the punishment has ceased to be an obligatory consequence of the crime, as embodied and other measures of criminal-legal nature, like legal consequences of the crime. The essence of criminal punishment is recognized as a historically variable category, since it is determined by the objectives of criminal policy implemented by the state. Punishment includes legal restriction of the person, its rights and freedoms, but it is caused by system interaction with other measures of criminal-legal character.

EVOLUTION OF PUNISHMENT IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW:PROBLEMS OF CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENT

The article analyzes the evolution of punishment in Russian criminal law and scientific doctrine. The article considers the dynamics of development and improvement of the definition of punishment in the Soviet and Russian criminal legislation. The refusal of punishment in punishment is analyzed, which is explained by the development of several trends of mitigation of punishment. Changes in many provisions on punishment confirm that this institution has a social and legal necessity and importance for society and the state. Is considered a long process of exclusion from the punishment uncharacteristic of regulations and the formation of the criminal code of legal structure, where the punishment has ceased to be an obligatory consequence of the crime, as embodied and other measures of criminal-legal nature, like legal consequences of the crime. The essence of criminal punishment is recognized as a historically variable category, since it is determined by the objectives of criminal policy implemented by the state. Punishment includes legal restriction of the person, its rights and freedoms, but it is caused by system interaction with other measures of criminal-legal character.

What’s Left? Political orientation, economic conditions and incarceration in Greece under Syriza-led government

An important body of scholarly work has been produced over recent decades to explain variation in levels and patterns of state punishment across and within different countries around the world. Two variables that have curiously evaded systematic attention in this regard are, first, the orientation of incumbent governments along the political spectrum, and second, the experience and fiscal implications of national economic downturn. Although recent years have seen both variables receive somewhat greater consideration, there is still precious little research into the effects on state punishment that they have in interaction with one another. With a view to helping fill this gap in the literature, this article identifies the direction and assesses the extent of influence exerted by government political orientation, on the one hand, and by economic downturn alongside its fiscal repercussions, on the other hand, upon the evolution of incarceration in the context of contemporary Greece. In so doing, we offer a uniquely detailed account of carceral trends before and during the period that a coalition government led by the left-wing Syriza party was in power. With regard to carceral trends as such, the scope of our analysis extends beyond conventional imprisonment also to include immigration detention. As well as arguing that economic downturn can place crucial limits on a government’s ability to execute progressive plans in carceral matters, we additionally conclude that a government’s scope of action in this vein may be further restricted depending on the autonomy it can wield in defiance of foreign forces intervening in both economic and political realms.