官僚主义,私人监狱和刑罚改革的未来

Sarah Armstrong
{"title":"官僚主义,私人监狱和刑罚改革的未来","authors":"Sarah Armstrong","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2003.7.1.275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses the private prisons debate to explore the legitimacy and accountability of prison generally. Attempts to determine the superiority (or inferiority) of private prisons cannot be resovled because of the normative and operational ambiguity of prison as a form of punishment. Instead this debate obscures the spread of a particular bureaucratic rationality in contemporary punishment that facilitates the expansion of prisons.","PeriodicalId":344882,"journal":{"name":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","volume":"214 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bureaucracy, Private Prisons and the Future of Penal Reform\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/NCLR.2003.7.1.275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper uses the private prisons debate to explore the legitimacy and accountability of prison generally. Attempts to determine the superiority (or inferiority) of private prisons cannot be resovled because of the normative and operational ambiguity of prison as a form of punishment. Instead this debate obscures the spread of a particular bureaucratic rationality in contemporary punishment that facilitates the expansion of prisons.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Buffalo Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"214 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Buffalo Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2003.7.1.275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2003.7.1.275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文以私人监狱之争为例,从总体上探讨监狱的合法性和问责性。由于监狱作为一种惩罚形式在规范和操作上的模糊性,确定私立监狱优劣的尝试无法得到解决。相反,这场辩论掩盖了一种特殊的官僚理性在当代惩罚中的传播,这种理性促进了监狱的扩张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bureaucracy, Private Prisons and the Future of Penal Reform
This paper uses the private prisons debate to explore the legitimacy and accountability of prison generally. Attempts to determine the superiority (or inferiority) of private prisons cannot be resovled because of the normative and operational ambiguity of prison as a form of punishment. Instead this debate obscures the spread of a particular bureaucratic rationality in contemporary punishment that facilitates the expansion of prisons.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Murder After the Merger: A Commentary on Finkelstein Group Violence and Group Vengeance: Toward a Retributivist Theory of International Criminal Law Benthamite Reflections on Codification of the General Principles of Criminal Liability: Towards the Panopticon The Politics of Grace: On the Moral Justification of Executive Clemency Toward a Better Categorical Balance of the Costs and Benefits of the Exclusionary Rule
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1