Volatile and Contradictory Punishment

TLDR

Contemporary penal policy is marked by volatility and incoherence, a phenomenon attributed to limits of the sovereign state, postmodern disintegration, and the rise of advanced liberalism and neo‑liberal politics, which together expand penality in nostalgic and innovative directions. The article argues that penal incoherence is best explained by the contradictory elements of New Right politics. The volatility is attributed to a mix of conservative state‑authoritarian strategies and neo‑liberal market‑governance tendencies. These insights challenge explanations that rely solely on deeper social transformations.

Abstract

Criminologists have recognized that contemporary penal policy and practice are characterized by an unusual degree of incoherence and volatility. Garland (1996) sees this as evidence of the limits of the sovereign state, Simon (1995) as a sign of the postmodern disintegration of modern penality, while others explain it in terms of the emergence of advanced liberalism and neo-liberal politics. This article argues that such incoherence is better understood in terms of the contradictory elements of New Right politics. The nature of this political alliance extends the repertory of penality simultaneously in `nostalgic' (neo-conservative) and `innovative' (neo-liberal) directions, resulting in considerable incoherence. At the same time, the conservative orientation to state authoritarian strategies and the neo-liberal leaning toward market and private sector governance, could account for the volatility. This brings into question some of the accounts based on more fundamental social transformations.