Pub Date : 2024-06-08DOI: 10.1177/14624745241258894
Diego Tuesta, Maritza Paredes
This article introduces the concept of penal extractivism in the punishment and society literature. We define penal extractivism as the punitive strategies that a state implements to safeguard extractive industries from citizens’ contention. This concept addresses the limitations of categories like criminalization, protest policing, social control, and labour discipline while bridging the gap between punishment studies and research on extractive industries. Additionally, we draw upon evidence of the Espinar mining conflict in Peru to explain five punitive strategies the state uses to handle protests: (1) off-duty policing and critical assets legislation, (2) state of emergency declarations, (3) police or prosecutorial notes against environmental defenders, (4) criminal indictments, and (5) the transferring of criminal cases to distant jurisdictions. Based on our findings, we argue that penal extractivism is a dynamic and ambivalent project that targets marginalized rural populations. The state partially deters mobilizations but fails to address the underlying social unrest, reinforcing the conditions that perpetuate mining conflicts. This in-depth within-case analysis examines the relationship between punishment and extractivism in the global context of contemporary social mobilizations.
{"title":"Penal extractivism: A qualitative study on punishment and extractive industries in Peru","authors":"Diego Tuesta, Maritza Paredes","doi":"10.1177/14624745241258894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241258894","url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces the concept of penal extractivism in the punishment and society literature. We define penal extractivism as the punitive strategies that a state implements to safeguard extractive industries from citizens’ contention. This concept addresses the limitations of categories like criminalization, protest policing, social control, and labour discipline while bridging the gap between punishment studies and research on extractive industries. Additionally, we draw upon evidence of the Espinar mining conflict in Peru to explain five punitive strategies the state uses to handle protests: (1) off-duty policing and critical assets legislation, (2) state of emergency declarations, (3) police or prosecutorial notes against environmental defenders, (4) criminal indictments, and (5) the transferring of criminal cases to distant jurisdictions. Based on our findings, we argue that penal extractivism is a dynamic and ambivalent project that targets marginalized rural populations. The state partially deters mobilizations but fails to address the underlying social unrest, reinforcing the conditions that perpetuate mining conflicts. This in-depth within-case analysis examines the relationship between punishment and extractivism in the global context of contemporary social mobilizations.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":" 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141369806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1177/14624745241252224
Jessica Martin, Adele N. Norris
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020, 16 protesters at Waikeria Prison, one of New Zealand's largest male prisons, engaged in a six-day standoff with prison guards to protest inhumane prison conditions. The Department of Corrections framed the event as an aimless riot, delegitimizing the intentional demonstration of resistance against state violence. Imprisoned intellectuals, specifically Imprisoned Black Radical tradition, have long examined and centered the prison as the harshest instrument of the state linked to the struggles of the collective. However, voices from imprisoned intellectuals are rarely considered in academic scholarship despite acute analysis of the state and liberation. This article employs the state of exception to contextualize the Waikeria protest. Particular attention is devoted to the ‘state of continuity,’ which allows for a broader understanding of a permanent state of racialized oppression and marginalization faced by Indigenous and Black communities in racialized-settler-colonial contexts. Populations designated as the exception are thus framed as a threat targeted for militaristic police intervention. This article concludes by extending the discussion of the state of continuity to include how expressions of rage and dissent by Indigenous and Black people are viewed as a direct threat to the sovereign order but are necessary for revolutionary change.
{"title":"Contextualizing Indigenous people and the state of exception: New Zealand's Waikeria Prison protest","authors":"Jessica Martin, Adele N. Norris","doi":"10.1177/14624745241252224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241252224","url":null,"abstract":"On Tuesday, December 29, 2020, 16 protesters at Waikeria Prison, one of New Zealand's largest male prisons, engaged in a six-day standoff with prison guards to protest inhumane prison conditions. The Department of Corrections framed the event as an aimless riot, delegitimizing the intentional demonstration of resistance against state violence. Imprisoned intellectuals, specifically Imprisoned Black Radical tradition, have long examined and centered the prison as the harshest instrument of the state linked to the struggles of the collective. However, voices from imprisoned intellectuals are rarely considered in academic scholarship despite acute analysis of the state and liberation. This article employs the state of exception to contextualize the Waikeria protest. Particular attention is devoted to the ‘state of continuity,’ which allows for a broader understanding of a permanent state of racialized oppression and marginalization faced by Indigenous and Black communities in racialized-settler-colonial contexts. Populations designated as the exception are thus framed as a threat targeted for militaristic police intervention. This article concludes by extending the discussion of the state of continuity to include how expressions of rage and dissent by Indigenous and Black people are viewed as a direct threat to the sovereign order but are necessary for revolutionary change.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"60 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140970318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-13DOI: 10.1177/14624745241251590
Leanne Weber, Sara Maher, Robyn Newitt
In this article we investigate the imposition of compulsory income management on racialised categories of welfare recipient in Australia, identify the contribution made by neoliberalism and settler colonialism in shaping that policy, and characterise income management as a form of ‘bordered welfare’. We begin by acknowledging that key features of neoliberal governance include an ideological aversion to the provision of welfare and the shifting of responsibility onto individuals to promote their own financial security and wellbeing. This has been accompanied by punitive approaches to welfare provision for those perceived to be deficient neoliberal citizens and a commitment to using financial levers, including the welfare system, to shape all manner of human behaviour. We trace the contours of the income management system and report the views of Aboriginal organisations and community leaders about their differential treatment as welfare recipients, noting that restrictions on financial autonomy are a well-documented form of surveillance and control historically directed towards Aboriginal Peoples in Australia. We conclude that this system operates as a form of bordered welfare that classifies certain categories of Aboriginal people as deficient citizens, subjecting them to differential, and detrimental, treatment driven by the ideologies and technologies of both neoliberalism and settler colonialism.
{"title":"Bordered welfare in Australia: Income management as a bordering technology of neoliberal and colonial governance","authors":"Leanne Weber, Sara Maher, Robyn Newitt","doi":"10.1177/14624745241251590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241251590","url":null,"abstract":"In this article we investigate the imposition of compulsory income management on racialised categories of welfare recipient in Australia, identify the contribution made by neoliberalism and settler colonialism in shaping that policy, and characterise income management as a form of ‘bordered welfare’. We begin by acknowledging that key features of neoliberal governance include an ideological aversion to the provision of welfare and the shifting of responsibility onto individuals to promote their own financial security and wellbeing. This has been accompanied by punitive approaches to welfare provision for those perceived to be deficient neoliberal citizens and a commitment to using financial levers, including the welfare system, to shape all manner of human behaviour. We trace the contours of the income management system and report the views of Aboriginal organisations and community leaders about their differential treatment as welfare recipients, noting that restrictions on financial autonomy are a well-documented form of surveillance and control historically directed towards Aboriginal Peoples in Australia. We conclude that this system operates as a form of bordered welfare that classifies certain categories of Aboriginal people as deficient citizens, subjecting them to differential, and detrimental, treatment driven by the ideologies and technologies of both neoliberalism and settler colonialism.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"90 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140984675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-03DOI: 10.1177/14624745241237173
Katarina Bogosavljević, J. Kilty
Prisons are inherently emotional environments where both staff and prisoners engage in a continuous process of emotion management while working and living in carceral spaces. This paper explores how Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) values and norms shape how predominantly nonuniformed staff manage compassion inside the prison environment. This includes when and to whom they are allowed to express compassion, when they need to hide or suppress the expression of compassion, and how expressing compassion toward prisoners can elicit feelings of disgust among some staff. We argue that, in the emotional arena that is prison, compassion is (re)configured into an individualized and compulsory emotion by way of CSC's organizational emotion culture that emphasizes punishment and control (the security-care nexus) rather than a transformative act that helps to resist the harms of incarceration and encourages healing. Compassion thus becomes a disciplinary apparatus whereby staff self-discipline as they alter their own emotional orientation toward their work, prisoners, and other staff and as a practice to collectively surveil, evaluate, and regulate one another. We contend that compassion bound to questions and practices of security stifles rehabilitation in this environment and that health and other care work must be reintegrated into community settings.
{"title":"Playing “mental judo”: Mapping staff compassion in Canadian federal prisons","authors":"Katarina Bogosavljević, J. Kilty","doi":"10.1177/14624745241237173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241237173","url":null,"abstract":"Prisons are inherently emotional environments where both staff and prisoners engage in a continuous process of emotion management while working and living in carceral spaces. This paper explores how Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) values and norms shape how predominantly nonuniformed staff manage compassion inside the prison environment. This includes when and to whom they are allowed to express compassion, when they need to hide or suppress the expression of compassion, and how expressing compassion toward prisoners can elicit feelings of disgust among some staff. We argue that, in the emotional arena that is prison, compassion is (re)configured into an individualized and compulsory emotion by way of CSC's organizational emotion culture that emphasizes punishment and control (the security-care nexus) rather than a transformative act that helps to resist the harms of incarceration and encourages healing. Compassion thus becomes a disciplinary apparatus whereby staff self-discipline as they alter their own emotional orientation toward their work, prisoners, and other staff and as a practice to collectively surveil, evaluate, and regulate one another. We contend that compassion bound to questions and practices of security stifles rehabilitation in this environment and that health and other care work must be reintegrated into community settings.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141017594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-01DOI: 10.1177/14624745241248153
Sarah Turnbull, Dawn Moore
Recent scholarship on carceral mobilities critiques conceptualizations of carceral spaces as fixed and stable, and movements within or around sites of confinement as linear and horizontal. According to this critique, criminological studies of imprisonment have typically embraced what Turner and Peters (2017) [‘Rethinking mobility in criminology’, Punishment & Society 19(1), 96–114] term a ‘sedentarist ontology’ by failing to consider the complexities of prisoner mobilities in the lived experiences of the carceral. We draw on qualitative interview data from the Prison Transparency Project, a multiyear study initially across four research sites in Canada focused on former prisoners’ narratives of their carceral experiences, to identify and analyze the multifaceted mobilities that characterize prison life. We focus on three aspects of carceral mobilities: the use of psychotropic medications to produce docility, the coercive (im)mobilities of physical restraints and the ‘prison on wheels’ (i.e., prisoner transport vehicles). Using the concept of ‘kinetic immobility’, in which prisoners’ bodies are immobilized so they can be coercively moved (or not) through space and time, we consider the degree to which the theoretical work on carceral mobilities aligns with lived experiences of incarceration, as narrated by research participants.
{"title":"Understanding carceral mobilities in and through lived experiences of incarceration","authors":"Sarah Turnbull, Dawn Moore","doi":"10.1177/14624745241248153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241248153","url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship on carceral mobilities critiques conceptualizations of carceral spaces as fixed and stable, and movements within or around sites of confinement as linear and horizontal. According to this critique, criminological studies of imprisonment have typically embraced what Turner and Peters (2017) [‘Rethinking mobility in criminology’, Punishment & Society 19(1), 96–114] term a ‘sedentarist ontology’ by failing to consider the complexities of prisoner mobilities in the lived experiences of the carceral. We draw on qualitative interview data from the Prison Transparency Project, a multiyear study initially across four research sites in Canada focused on former prisoners’ narratives of their carceral experiences, to identify and analyze the multifaceted mobilities that characterize prison life. We focus on three aspects of carceral mobilities: the use of psychotropic medications to produce docility, the coercive (im)mobilities of physical restraints and the ‘prison on wheels’ (i.e., prisoner transport vehicles). Using the concept of ‘kinetic immobility’, in which prisoners’ bodies are immobilized so they can be coercively moved (or not) through space and time, we consider the degree to which the theoretical work on carceral mobilities aligns with lived experiences of incarceration, as narrated by research participants.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"22 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141047833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-23DOI: 10.1177/14624745241240551
Kathryne M Young, Karin D Martin, Sarah Lageson
{"title":"Access to justice at the intersection of civil and criminal law","authors":"Kathryne M Young, Karin D Martin, Sarah Lageson","doi":"10.1177/14624745241240551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241240551","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"78 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140667588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-02DOI: 10.1177/14624745241243193
Karan Tripathi, Netanel Dagan
Scholars argue that lifers’ parole can be mobilised to be punitive and politicised. However, how parole decision-makers construct and disguise their punitive and politicised discourses when deciding the paroled subject is understudied, especially with regard to the global south. In this paper, based on content analysis of the dossiers of Delhi's Sentence Review Board (SRB) during 2018–2021, and in-depth interviews with the SRB members, we found that most of the SRB's rejections were solely based on the crime, a violation of a lifers right to a meaningful consideration for premature release. The SRB members rationalise their decision-making through two discourses: ‘temporal entrapment’, and ‘disguised punitivism’. Through these discourses, the SRB exercises penal power which is formally unified by the legal scaffolding but discursively bifurcated, for negotiating competing penal and political values and logics.
{"title":"‘Entrapped in a penal time capsule’: Extralegal discourses in sentence review of life prisoners in India","authors":"Karan Tripathi, Netanel Dagan","doi":"10.1177/14624745241243193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745241243193","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars argue that lifers’ parole can be mobilised to be punitive and politicised. However, how parole decision-makers construct and disguise their punitive and politicised discourses when deciding the paroled subject is understudied, especially with regard to the global south. In this paper, based on content analysis of the dossiers of Delhi's Sentence Review Board (SRB) during 2018–2021, and in-depth interviews with the SRB members, we found that most of the SRB's rejections were solely based on the crime, a violation of a lifers right to a meaningful consideration for premature release. The SRB members rationalise their decision-making through two discourses: ‘temporal entrapment’, and ‘disguised punitivism’. Through these discourses, the SRB exercises penal power which is formally unified by the legal scaffolding but discursively bifurcated, for negotiating competing penal and political values and logics.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"165 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140755117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-12DOI: 10.1177/14624745231220875
Mike Nellis
{"title":"Book review: The Idea of Prison Abolition by Tommie Shelby","authors":"Mike Nellis","doi":"10.1177/14624745231220875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231220875","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"2 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139532693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-15DOI: 10.1177/14624745231219709
Jukka Könönen
Notwithstanding punitive implications, immigration detention as an administrative deprivation of liberty represents a characteristic police measure, targeting deportable noncitizens with limited rights and protections. Drawing on an analysis of the detention system in Finland, I discuss different functions of immigration detention, focusing on police powers in the governance of mobile populations. In Finland, immigration detention is separated from the criminal justice system and delegated to the police, who possess broad powers to impose coercive measures for the enforcement of immigration decisions and social control in the absence of effective judicial supervision. Despite being affiliated with the removal of rejected asylum seekers, immigration detention also is intertwined with crime prevention and control of irregular migration. In addition to deprivation of liberty in the first place, police measures support removal procedures that continue during detention, as well as other administrative strategies to control deportable people and deter unauthorized residency, involving varying degrees of coercion. Though connected with criminal justice and manifestations of penal power in border criminology discussions, immigration detention can arguably be better understood as a coercive police measure, which can be employed alongside other administrative means for immigration enforcement outside of the criminal justice system.
{"title":"Multiple functions of immigration detention: Police measures in the governance of mobile populations","authors":"Jukka Könönen","doi":"10.1177/14624745231219709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231219709","url":null,"abstract":"Notwithstanding punitive implications, immigration detention as an administrative deprivation of liberty represents a characteristic police measure, targeting deportable noncitizens with limited rights and protections. Drawing on an analysis of the detention system in Finland, I discuss different functions of immigration detention, focusing on police powers in the governance of mobile populations. In Finland, immigration detention is separated from the criminal justice system and delegated to the police, who possess broad powers to impose coercive measures for the enforcement of immigration decisions and social control in the absence of effective judicial supervision. Despite being affiliated with the removal of rejected asylum seekers, immigration detention also is intertwined with crime prevention and control of irregular migration. In addition to deprivation of liberty in the first place, police measures support removal procedures that continue during detention, as well as other administrative strategies to control deportable people and deter unauthorized residency, involving varying degrees of coercion. Though connected with criminal justice and manifestations of penal power in border criminology discussions, immigration detention can arguably be better understood as a coercive police measure, which can be employed alongside other administrative means for immigration enforcement outside of the criminal justice system.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"36 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138997651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-15DOI: 10.1177/14624745231218472
Ana Ballesteros-Pena, Cristina Fernández-Bessa, J. A. Brandariz
Studies on immigration enforcement and bordered penality frequently depict immigration detention as a system of confinement enforced in closed, relatively opaque facilities geared towards the expeditious deportation of non-citizens. This notion is actually a synecdoche of the diverse forms of containment and the varying, more or less dispensable roles played by detention practices within immigration enforcement systems. This paper challenges this perspective by considering prominent changes taking place in the detention field across Europe, which can be seen as signals of a gradual detention crisis. In this respect, it explores the versatility of detention practices, which have made the detention system particularly resilient. Despite this resilience, though, the paper unveils and maps the obsolescence of detention centric models of immigration enforcement, which manifests itself in the jurisdictions in which detention systems either are largely irrelevant or have been shrinking in the recent past. Additionally, the paper examines the consolidation of the hotspot archipelago in Mediterranean Europe, which has expanded the containment capacity of the border control apparatus and made it increasingly plastic. Yet the hotspot system is in itself an additional manifestation of the obsolescence of detention-centric models of enforcement. After having scrutinised these different dimensions, the paper concludes by exploring the promises and pitfalls of a changing detention landscape and suggesting directions for future research.
{"title":"The obsolescence of detention: Versatility, expendability and plasticity in the field of immigration confinement","authors":"Ana Ballesteros-Pena, Cristina Fernández-Bessa, J. A. Brandariz","doi":"10.1177/14624745231218472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231218472","url":null,"abstract":"Studies on immigration enforcement and bordered penality frequently depict immigration detention as a system of confinement enforced in closed, relatively opaque facilities geared towards the expeditious deportation of non-citizens. This notion is actually a synecdoche of the diverse forms of containment and the varying, more or less dispensable roles played by detention practices within immigration enforcement systems. This paper challenges this perspective by considering prominent changes taking place in the detention field across Europe, which can be seen as signals of a gradual detention crisis. In this respect, it explores the versatility of detention practices, which have made the detention system particularly resilient. Despite this resilience, though, the paper unveils and maps the obsolescence of detention centric models of immigration enforcement, which manifests itself in the jurisdictions in which detention systems either are largely irrelevant or have been shrinking in the recent past. Additionally, the paper examines the consolidation of the hotspot archipelago in Mediterranean Europe, which has expanded the containment capacity of the border control apparatus and made it increasingly plastic. Yet the hotspot system is in itself an additional manifestation of the obsolescence of detention-centric models of enforcement. After having scrutinised these different dimensions, the paper concludes by exploring the promises and pitfalls of a changing detention landscape and suggesting directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":148794,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society","volume":"5 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139000308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：