Exceptional states: The political geography of comparative penology

Abstract

It is now common in the sociology of punishment to lament that comparative penology has not matured as an area of research. While there have been seminal works in the comparative canon, their conceptual tools tend to be drawn from grand narratives and macro-structural perspectives. Comparative researchers therefore lack concepts that can help capture the complexity of penality within a single nation, limiting the cross-national perspective. Why is this relative lack of comparative refinement still the case? This article investigates this question by looking specifically at penal exceptionalism, a concept central to comparative penology. While punitiveness as a comparative and descriptive category has been critiqued, its converse, penal exceptionalism remains prevalent but undertheorised. Examining exceptionalism reveals that it is not merely the macro-structural approach to comparison that has limited the development of cross-national sociology of punishment, but the Anglocentric assumptions, which are the bedrock of comparative penology. In this essay, I argue that penal exceptionalism versus punitiveness is an Anglocentric formulation. These taken-for-granted assumptions have become so central to the comparative enterprise that they act as a barrier to developing new innovative comparative frameworks and concepts. The article concludes by suggesting some methodological strategies that are intended as a way of helping comparative penology to expand its toolkit and support the ongoing development of more equitable criminological knowledge.

Becoming a Prison Officer: An Analysis of the Early Development of Prison Officer Cultures

“…Much of the literature cited above is based in England and Wales, yet it is assumed to be applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom or perhaps Western Europe. Furthermore, highlighting cases in other jurisdictions allows for a greater understanding of the preconditions which shape any system (Nelken 2011), and this research contends that there is much to be learned from a small nation with both similarities and discontinuities with other countries (Brangan 2020; Hamilton 2013; Lacey 2012). Furthermore, focusing on prison officer reform in the context of ongoing organisational change, at the heart of which lies the professionalisation of the role of the prison officer, allows a greater understanding of prison officer cultures and professional and organisational change.…”

“…In many ways, the tensions within the professionalisation agenda within the SPS, can be seen as a reflection of wider tensions within Scottish penality, and this research proposes that an interrogation of Scottish prison officer cultures forms another route into understanding this wider aperture. The Scottish context has both shared and divergent features of other comparable jurisdictions such as Ireland, New Zealand, and some Scandinavian countries (Brangan 2020; Hamilton 2011, 2016; Lacey 2012; Spencer 2015), yet it is beset with contradiction: it is a small nation with welfarist penal practices embedded into key parts of its justice system (McAra 2005; McVie 2017), and, when compared with England and Wales, as it usually is, it is often regarded as comparatively progressive (Brangan 2020). However, within this context, persistent and undeniable punitiveness remains, most notably in its extraordinary (by Western European standards) use of both imprisonment (Armstrong 2018b; Brangan 2019, 2020; van Zyl Smit and Morrison 2020) and community penalties (McNeill 2018).…”

“…Although human rights approaches have been adopted within the context of Scottish imprisonment, this merely allowed for an expansion of the penal apparatus (Armstrong 2018a). Although Scottish imprisonment may appear more ‘civilised’ than imprisonment in its immediate neighbours, and its penal politics certainly more moderate, this narrative of ‘exceptionalism’ allows, and indeed permits, penal excess (Brangan 2019, 2020; see also Armstrong 2018a, 2018b).…”

“…However, none of this literature is based in Scotland. This matters because of the distinctive organisational context in which prisons were to be remoulded into a ‘citizen recovery service’ and prison officers into ‘justice professionals’ (Scottish Prison Service 2016), and Scotland's distinctive wider national context of both laudatory welfarist based practices (McAra 2005, 2008; McVie 2017), and excessive punitiveness (Armstrong 2018b; Brangan 2019, 2020; van Zyl Smit and Morrison 2020). Much of the literature cited above is based in England and Wales, yet it is assumed to be applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom or perhaps Western Europe.…”

“…This research sheds light on the possibilities and obstacles for occupational cultural change within prisons and helps to unpick and illuminate the challenge around transforming the ‘prison officer’ into a ‘justice professional’ (Scottish Prison Service 2016). More widely, the research allows a greater understanding of penality within a small nation with both shared and divergent practices with other comparable nations (see Brangan 2020; Hamilton 2013; Lacey 2012; McAra 2008). Furthermore, the research allows an examination of the penal practices , as opposed to only penal rhetoric and policy , of one such small and ‘progressive’ nation (see also McAra 2017), illustrated through the disjuncture between the aspirations contained in SPS corporate documents (Scottish Prison Service 2013, 2016), and the views of some of their prison officers as discussed in this article.…”