The Black Hand
Unclean
Dream on!
You can't argue with history VP - I did. End of.
Against Crime and against prison
- Thread starter The Black Hand
- Start date
You can't argue with history VP - I did. End of.
The Black Hand
Unclean
you are just a blinkered sectarian who doesn't know the reality of crime and incarceration. But don't worry, there are a lot like you, but you are trying to turn it into an angst ridden political platform. Give it up. You hop from issue to issue, and when you've found an issue you think you can make progress on you push it for all you can squeeze out of it. It's sad really.
Try politics for a change, or even Marxism, it would do you good.
The Black Hand
Unclean
I asked you for clarity. You posted up those stats not me.
_angel_
.
I've heard of people convicted of shoplifting asking to be sent to jail because it's the only way to get them on a treatment programme.
Which is mental.
The Black Hand
Unclean
This is the universal carceral - remember that Prison abolitionist conference I have been promoting in London soon/July;
http://web.mac.com/mikelarsen1/The_Universal_Carceral/Welcome.html
http://web.mac.com/mikelarsen1/The_Universal_Carceral/Welcome.html
The Black Hand
Unclean
Few and far between...
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
It was the case say five years ago or more but now a days it shouldn't be the case. In fact if you come through the criminal route you are guaranteed some form of treatment even if its just a script.For Abstinence mentoring and the recovering communities model there will be a waiting list and residential detox is very limited but alternative prescribing there should be no probs.
There may be local blockages but they should be temporary.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
That's all we need : a day centre for those normally incarcerated and institutionalised in academia.
The Black Hand
Unclean
For the not brain dead IWCA leftist
What is the Universal carceral?
In the last chapter of Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault (1977) discusses ‘the carceral’. He describes a network of power relations and technologies that “formed first the immediate surroundings of the prison, then spread farther and farther outwards” (1977: 297). He suggests that “in penal justice, the prison transformed the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique; the carceral archipelago transported this technique from the penal institution to the entire social body” (1977: 298).
He later argues that;
“If there is an overall political issue around the prison, it is not therefore whether it is to be corrective or not; whether the judges, the psychiatrists or the sociologists are to exercise more power in it than the administrators or supervisors; it is not even whether we should have prison or something other than prison. At present, the problem lies rather in the steep rise in the use of these mechanisms of normalization and the wide-ranging powers which, through the proliferation of new disciplines, they bring with them” (1977: 306).
In many ways, our use of the term ‘universal carceral’ is intended to invoke Foucault’s observations regarding the emergence and expansion of a ‘carceral archipelago’ or ever-widening network of penitentiary techniques. However, we suggest that contemporary trends in confinement require that we broaden our conceptual language beyond a disciplinary and penological framework. For example, contemporary processes of confinement are often associated with what Garland (2001) describes as ‘criminologies of the other’ - efforts to exclude and manage individuals perceived to be threatening, rather than disciplinary objectives of normalization and correction. We suggest that confinement has effectively ‘escaped’ the prison and become something of a universal instrument for dealing with social, political and economic problems.
Some trends that are illustrative of the universal carceral:
•Criminalization through other means: By this, we highlight the manner in which situations perceived as problematic can be treated as crime without technically being designated as such, by laying the foundations for the authorization of detention in other legal domains. These processes involve deeming individuals to be threatening and / or disposable through legally-codified mechanisms that structure-out evidentiary thresholds, procedural guidelines and accountability mechanisms contained within criminal law.
•Normalization of confinement: Once a mechanism of last resort in the sphere of criminal justice, the carceral is now entrenched in additional spheres of governance guided by precautionary logics. As a result, detention is becoming a more common experience amongst a growing number of individuals in a world in which confinement is presented as a normal response to a myriad of social and political issues.
•An increasingly multi-carceral society: Incarceration, confinement, detention, and, generally speaking, the deprivation of liberty, are not associated exclusively with the prison, criminal justice system, or disciplinary exercises of power. In the name of security, pre-emptive or precautionary forms of detention - aimed not a disciplining an individual, but at isolating and managing their potential threat - have become features of post-September 11 social control apparatuses. Additionally, the emergence and growth of public health agencies, coupled with the threats posed by communicable diseases or potential pandemics, have resulted in the development of new procedures for the involuntary confinement of individuals or groups considered to be infectious, recalcitrant in relation to treatment regimes, or otherwise risky. Confinement has also become a central tool for the management of immigration and the transnational flow of refugees and displaced persons. In this case, incarceration is related to the exercise of sovereign power and the policing of territory. As societies become increasingly open to flows of capital and increasingly closed to flows of people, the immigration detention centre has emerged as an important new institution of social control.
•Globalization of the carceral: In the contemporary context dominated by securitization, governing authorities share information with other nations in a stated effort to address shared security threats. This is resulting in a dual process in which previously-forbidden practices of detention - for example, extraordinary rendition and disappearances - become acknowledged as outsourced components of Western security apparatuses, while Western carceral practices are exported to developing nations through the training of criminal justice personnel, operating as a form of neo-colonialism.
•Continued expansion of carceral techniques into everyday life: Systems of surveillance that Foucault associates with disciplinary power and the carceral are becoming pervasive. As more and more aspects of our public and private lives become subjected to panoptic and synoptic techniques of observation, the boundaries between the prison and the social continue to blur. Schools are transforming into carceral spaces for the observation and management of youth; CCTV cameras and private security guards are becoming ubiquitous features of public and mass-private spaces; and the proliferation of intelligence-based systems of government - including a growing number of biometric databases - has facilitated the risk management of individuals and populations.
What is the Universal carceral?
In the last chapter of Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault (1977) discusses ‘the carceral’. He describes a network of power relations and technologies that “formed first the immediate surroundings of the prison, then spread farther and farther outwards” (1977: 297). He suggests that “in penal justice, the prison transformed the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique; the carceral archipelago transported this technique from the penal institution to the entire social body” (1977: 298).
He later argues that;
“If there is an overall political issue around the prison, it is not therefore whether it is to be corrective or not; whether the judges, the psychiatrists or the sociologists are to exercise more power in it than the administrators or supervisors; it is not even whether we should have prison or something other than prison. At present, the problem lies rather in the steep rise in the use of these mechanisms of normalization and the wide-ranging powers which, through the proliferation of new disciplines, they bring with them” (1977: 306).
In many ways, our use of the term ‘universal carceral’ is intended to invoke Foucault’s observations regarding the emergence and expansion of a ‘carceral archipelago’ or ever-widening network of penitentiary techniques. However, we suggest that contemporary trends in confinement require that we broaden our conceptual language beyond a disciplinary and penological framework. For example, contemporary processes of confinement are often associated with what Garland (2001) describes as ‘criminologies of the other’ - efforts to exclude and manage individuals perceived to be threatening, rather than disciplinary objectives of normalization and correction. We suggest that confinement has effectively ‘escaped’ the prison and become something of a universal instrument for dealing with social, political and economic problems.
Some trends that are illustrative of the universal carceral:
•Criminalization through other means: By this, we highlight the manner in which situations perceived as problematic can be treated as crime without technically being designated as such, by laying the foundations for the authorization of detention in other legal domains. These processes involve deeming individuals to be threatening and / or disposable through legally-codified mechanisms that structure-out evidentiary thresholds, procedural guidelines and accountability mechanisms contained within criminal law.
•Normalization of confinement: Once a mechanism of last resort in the sphere of criminal justice, the carceral is now entrenched in additional spheres of governance guided by precautionary logics. As a result, detention is becoming a more common experience amongst a growing number of individuals in a world in which confinement is presented as a normal response to a myriad of social and political issues.
•An increasingly multi-carceral society: Incarceration, confinement, detention, and, generally speaking, the deprivation of liberty, are not associated exclusively with the prison, criminal justice system, or disciplinary exercises of power. In the name of security, pre-emptive or precautionary forms of detention - aimed not a disciplining an individual, but at isolating and managing their potential threat - have become features of post-September 11 social control apparatuses. Additionally, the emergence and growth of public health agencies, coupled with the threats posed by communicable diseases or potential pandemics, have resulted in the development of new procedures for the involuntary confinement of individuals or groups considered to be infectious, recalcitrant in relation to treatment regimes, or otherwise risky. Confinement has also become a central tool for the management of immigration and the transnational flow of refugees and displaced persons. In this case, incarceration is related to the exercise of sovereign power and the policing of territory. As societies become increasingly open to flows of capital and increasingly closed to flows of people, the immigration detention centre has emerged as an important new institution of social control.
•Globalization of the carceral: In the contemporary context dominated by securitization, governing authorities share information with other nations in a stated effort to address shared security threats. This is resulting in a dual process in which previously-forbidden practices of detention - for example, extraordinary rendition and disappearances - become acknowledged as outsourced components of Western security apparatuses, while Western carceral practices are exported to developing nations through the training of criminal justice personnel, operating as a form of neo-colonialism.
•Continued expansion of carceral techniques into everyday life: Systems of surveillance that Foucault associates with disciplinary power and the carceral are becoming pervasive. As more and more aspects of our public and private lives become subjected to panoptic and synoptic techniques of observation, the boundaries between the prison and the social continue to blur. Schools are transforming into carceral spaces for the observation and management of youth; CCTV cameras and private security guards are becoming ubiquitous features of public and mass-private spaces; and the proliferation of intelligence-based systems of government - including a growing number of biometric databases - has facilitated the risk management of individuals and populations.
I agree. The demonisation of people who have been arrested, let alone charged, convicted or imprisoned needs to be addressed. But that is a problem for society and the media rather than politicians - there are less legislative / structural barriers than there are moral or social ones, I think.
Indeed. They are a category of offender where the Courts often run out of options ...
You got a source for that, it sounds extremely high and differs from my recollection last time I saw stats?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
It might be an idea if DRR's were recorded and reported properly!
The Black Hand
Unclean
Well I lowered that % down to 90% not to give 'opponents' an opportunity to have a meaningles dig. Every time I have looked at the stats they have been in the region of 93-95%, I cannot remember any others.
You got a source for it though?
Similar threads
