Loading…
What were “They” Thinking, and Does it Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform
In Visions of Social Control (1985) Stanley Cohen provided a typology of scholarly works on the punitive turn: “uneven progress,” “good intentions-disastrous consequences,” and “discipline and mystification.” This Essay applies these categories to recent punishment and society scholarship, finding a...
Saved in:
Published in: | Law & social inquiry 2020-02, Vol.45 (1), p.249-263 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593 |
container_end_page | 263 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 249 |
container_title | Law & social inquiry |
container_volume | 45 |
creator | Aviram, Hadar |
description | In Visions of Social Control (1985) Stanley Cohen provided a typology of scholarly works on the punitive turn: “uneven progress,” “good intentions-disastrous consequences,” and “discipline and mystification.” This Essay applies these categories to recent punishment and society scholarship, finding a clear preference for the third category, arguing that current works do not merely point to systemic evils—they impute bad intent to individuals in the system. Against this current, I identify two works—James Forman’s Locking Up Our Own (2017) and Heather Schoenfeld’s Building the Prison State (2016)—and show the strengths of analyses that take individual actors on their own terms. Finally, relying on the recent example of the Ban the Box initiative—a well-intended but failed policy—I argue that flexibility in viewing actors’ motivations, rather than relegating them to the role of cogs in a system fraught by inherent flaws, is important not only for scholarly accuracy but for policy and strategic reasons. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/lsi.2019.25 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2448879899</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2448879899</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkN1KwzAYhoMoOKdH3kDAQ-1M06RpjkTm32Qi6MTDkrZfXGbXbkmq9GwXoje3K7HbPHrhex8-Xh6ETkMyCEkoLktnBpSEckD5HuqFgomAsVjuox5JpAhizuJDdOTcjBBCacx7qH2fKo-_wQJer34mU2jXq188mZrq01QfF1hVBb6pwWHj8ZPyHuwVfvW2yX1jVYlHFSwbVRrfbslRVZgvUzTbxkPlsanw0Jq5qbrTY-O8yQG_gK7t_BgdaFU6OPnPPnq7u50MH4Lx8_1oeD0OchqHPtBMRFxToFpEuUhYlBUFg0zxRPOIakWFJhl0bKJiVlCIsiyXAEQWOaWEy6iPznZ_F7ZeNuB8Oqsb2-1xKWUsSYRM5IY631G5rZ2zoNNFN1vZNg1JunGbdm7TjduU8ugPcGRv5Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2448879899</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What were “They” Thinking, and Does it Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform</title><source>Criminology Collection</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Nexis UK</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Cambridge University Press</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection</source><creator>Aviram, Hadar</creator><creatorcontrib>Aviram, Hadar</creatorcontrib><description>In Visions of Social Control (1985) Stanley Cohen provided a typology of scholarly works on the punitive turn: “uneven progress,” “good intentions-disastrous consequences,” and “discipline and mystification.” This Essay applies these categories to recent punishment and society scholarship, finding a clear preference for the third category, arguing that current works do not merely point to systemic evils—they impute bad intent to individuals in the system. Against this current, I identify two works—James Forman’s Locking Up Our Own (2017) and Heather Schoenfeld’s Building the Prison State (2016)—and show the strengths of analyses that take individual actors on their own terms. Finally, relying on the recent example of the Ban the Box initiative—a well-intended but failed policy—I argue that flexibility in viewing actors’ motivations, rather than relegating them to the role of cogs in a system fraught by inherent flaws, is important not only for scholarly accuracy but for policy and strategic reasons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0897-6546</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1747-4469</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-696X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2019.25</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Bans ; Classification ; Crime prevention ; Criminal justice ; Criminology ; Flexibility ; Foucault, Michel ; Imprisonment ; Inequality ; Legal reform ; Prison reform ; Progressive Era ; Punishment ; Racism ; Segregation ; Social control ; Social justice ; Social reform ; Society ; Taxonomy</subject><ispartof>Law & social inquiry, 2020-02, Vol.45 (1), p.249-263</ispartof><rights>2019 American Bar Foundation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2448879899/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2448879899?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12845,21374,21385,21392,21393,27342,27864,27922,27923,33221,33609,33767,33772,33983,34528,43731,43812,43946,44113,73991,74080,74238,74409</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aviram, Hadar</creatorcontrib><title>What were “They” Thinking, and Does it Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform</title><title>Law & social inquiry</title><description>In Visions of Social Control (1985) Stanley Cohen provided a typology of scholarly works on the punitive turn: “uneven progress,” “good intentions-disastrous consequences,” and “discipline and mystification.” This Essay applies these categories to recent punishment and society scholarship, finding a clear preference for the third category, arguing that current works do not merely point to systemic evils—they impute bad intent to individuals in the system. Against this current, I identify two works—James Forman’s Locking Up Our Own (2017) and Heather Schoenfeld’s Building the Prison State (2016)—and show the strengths of analyses that take individual actors on their own terms. Finally, relying on the recent example of the Ban the Box initiative—a well-intended but failed policy—I argue that flexibility in viewing actors’ motivations, rather than relegating them to the role of cogs in a system fraught by inherent flaws, is important not only for scholarly accuracy but for policy and strategic reasons.</description><subject>Bans</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Crime prevention</subject><subject>Criminal justice</subject><subject>Criminology</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Foucault, Michel</subject><subject>Imprisonment</subject><subject>Inequality</subject><subject>Legal reform</subject><subject>Prison reform</subject><subject>Progressive Era</subject><subject>Punishment</subject><subject>Racism</subject><subject>Segregation</subject><subject>Social control</subject><subject>Social justice</subject><subject>Social reform</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><issn>0897-6546</issn><issn>1747-4469</issn><issn>1545-696X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BGRYB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M0O</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNotkN1KwzAYhoMoOKdH3kDAQ-1M06RpjkTm32Qi6MTDkrZfXGbXbkmq9GwXoje3K7HbPHrhex8-Xh6ETkMyCEkoLktnBpSEckD5HuqFgomAsVjuox5JpAhizuJDdOTcjBBCacx7qH2fKo-_wQJer34mU2jXq188mZrq01QfF1hVBb6pwWHj8ZPyHuwVfvW2yX1jVYlHFSwbVRrfbslRVZgvUzTbxkPlsanw0Jq5qbrTY-O8yQG_gK7t_BgdaFU6OPnPPnq7u50MH4Lx8_1oeD0OchqHPtBMRFxToFpEuUhYlBUFg0zxRPOIakWFJhl0bKJiVlCIsiyXAEQWOaWEy6iPznZ_F7ZeNuB8Oqsb2-1xKWUsSYRM5IY631G5rZ2zoNNFN1vZNg1JunGbdm7TjduU8ugPcGRv5Q</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>Aviram, Hadar</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>What were “They” Thinking, and Does it Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform</title><author>Aviram, Hadar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bans</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Crime prevention</topic><topic>Criminal justice</topic><topic>Criminology</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Foucault, Michel</topic><topic>Imprisonment</topic><topic>Inequality</topic><topic>Legal reform</topic><topic>Prison reform</topic><topic>Progressive Era</topic><topic>Punishment</topic><topic>Racism</topic><topic>Segregation</topic><topic>Social control</topic><topic>Social justice</topic><topic>Social reform</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aviram, Hadar</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Law & social inquiry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aviram, Hadar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What were “They” Thinking, and Does it Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform</atitle><jtitle>Law & social inquiry</jtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>249</spage><epage>263</epage><pages>249-263</pages><issn>0897-6546</issn><eissn>1747-4469</eissn><eissn>1545-696X</eissn><abstract>In Visions of Social Control (1985) Stanley Cohen provided a typology of scholarly works on the punitive turn: “uneven progress,” “good intentions-disastrous consequences,” and “discipline and mystification.” This Essay applies these categories to recent punishment and society scholarship, finding a clear preference for the third category, arguing that current works do not merely point to systemic evils—they impute bad intent to individuals in the system. Against this current, I identify two works—James Forman’s Locking Up Our Own (2017) and Heather Schoenfeld’s Building the Prison State (2016)—and show the strengths of analyses that take individual actors on their own terms. Finally, relying on the recent example of the Ban the Box initiative—a well-intended but failed policy—I argue that flexibility in viewing actors’ motivations, rather than relegating them to the role of cogs in a system fraught by inherent flaws, is important not only for scholarly accuracy but for policy and strategic reasons.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/lsi.2019.25</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0897-6546 |
ispartof | Law & social inquiry, 2020-02, Vol.45 (1), p.249-263 |
issn | 0897-6546 1747-4469 1545-696X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2448879899 |
source | Criminology Collection; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Nexis UK; Politics Collection; Sociology Collection; PAIS Index; Cambridge University Press; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection |
subjects | Bans Classification Crime prevention Criminal justice Criminology Flexibility Foucault, Michel Imprisonment Inequality Legal reform Prison reform Progressive Era Punishment Racism Segregation Social control Social justice Social reform Society Taxonomy |
title | What were “They” Thinking, and Does it Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T11%3A54%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20were%20%E2%80%9CThey%E2%80%9D%20Thinking,%20and%20Does%20it%20Matter?%20Structural%20Inequality%20and%20Individual%20Intent%20in%20Criminal%20Justice%20Reform&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20social%20inquiry&rft.au=Aviram,%20Hadar&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=249&rft.epage=263&rft.pages=249-263&rft.issn=0897-6546&rft.eissn=1747-4469&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/lsi.2019.25&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2448879899%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-f4735f2e2f73c7843bdd4eba58f532fa27f0bec268a64d2e3bbc9ee09dc220593%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2448879899&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |