A Research Agenda on Reform

Abstract

In the past 10 years, state legislatures from across the political spectrum have passed or considered reforms aimed at reducing prison populations. The breadth of reform challenges social science scholarship that views mass incarceration as “locked-in” by political, social, and economic forces and, as such, presents an important area of scholarly inquiry. In this article, I argue that new research on reform should be animated by a sociopolitical perspective on punishment that developed out of social science research explaining the rise of mass incarceration. In particular, I pose research questions, hypotheses, and potential methodologies related to (1) the causes of the new moment of reform; (2) the variation in reform efforts; and (3) the process, content, and political effects of reform. I conclude by briefly summarizing what we know about the underlying rationales and strategies of this new moment.

Redemption and reproach: Religion and carceral control in action among women in prison

“…In fact, the narratives and forms of enactment described above differ from studies on how religion outside prison drives group cohesion and collective action (e.g., Pattillo‐McCoy, 1998; Wood, 2002). Nevertheless, these findings support a growing body of literature on the far‐reaching grip of carceral control (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012; Kaufman et al., 2018; Schoenfeld, 2016; Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015). That religion serves prison institutional aims in this case while challenging normative state rhetoric must be interpreted as falling within the severely restricted array of possible actions in the carceral environment (see also Farrall, Bottoms, & Shapland, 2010).…”

“…Criminal justice institutions are not the only institutions that surveil individuals and proliferate carceral narratives. There is also a shadow carceral state, including civil and administrative authorities “not officially recognized as ‘penal’… [that] nonetheless acquired the capacity to impose punitive sanctions” (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012, p. 222; see also Schoenfeld, 2016). Beyond the shadow carceral institutions that have overt authority to sanction, many other organizations are complicit with—and even strengthen—state surveillance and penal control through a web of bureaucratic and hierarchical relationships (Gottschalk, 2008; Kaufman et al., 2018).…”

“…The same is true for carceral narratives. Carceral narratives operate through “shadow carceral” institutions that fall squarely under legal purview, including administrative and civil courts, immigration courts, parole offices, and clerks’ offices (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012; Schoenfeld, 2016). Beyond shadow carceral institutions, evidence points to an ever‐widening net of carceral control through institutions that are not formally viewed as criminal justice apparatuses (Kaufman et al., 2018; Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015), including schools (Brayne, 2014; Flores, 2016; Haskins & Jacobsen, 2017; Shedd, 2015), hospitals (Lara‐Millán, 2014), and rehabilitation programs (Miller, 2014; Schept, 2015).…”

Contesting market rationality: Discursive struggles over prison privatization

“…A final contribution is to the growing body of scholarship that points to the importance of ongoing struggles to define priorities, advocate solutions, and shape narratives of criminal justice policy (Cheliotis, 2006; Goodman et al, 2014, 2017; Page, 2013; Schoenfeld, 2016). By linking actors to speech, it becomes possible to observe disagreements over the meaning of prison privatization and to track the shifting terrain of discursive struggles (Benson and Wood, 2015; Ferree et al, 2002; Snow et al, 2007; Steensland, 2008).…”

Fracturing the penal state: State actors and the role of conflict in penal change

“…Most other definitions are more expansive. In her review of the literature, Schoenfeld (2016: 157) writes: The carceral state includes the police, courts, and jails/prisons, but also other institutions and technologies responsible for “mass social control” such as legal financial obligations (fines, fees, restitution orders), probation, electronic monitoring, and other types of monitoring “in the community” (which may be done by private companies).…”