How iron is the iron cage of new penology?

Abstract

This article addresses the extent to which the concept of 'new penology' is helpful in understanding penal currents, particularly as they relate to the older paradigms of retribution and rehabilitation. In the light of theoretical, historical and empirical evidence, support is lent to the arguments: that the new penology thesis downplays the role of human agency at the level of implementing criminal justice policies; that it ignores the potentially positive aspects of managerialism; and that it misses the continuity between past and contemporary penal features. It is concluded that, despite its merits, new penology remains a hypothesis, rather than a realized penal rationale.

GPS‐Electronic Monitoring and Contemporary Penology: A Case Study of US GPS‐Electronic Monitoring Programmes

“…Several scholars have been critical of this marked break from a modern to a new penology and provide compelling evidence that many of the new penology characteristics (for example, actuarialism) can be traced to early modernity (see Rigakos and Hadden 2001; Crawford 2003; Coleman and Sim 2005). As Cheliotis (2006) sums up:…”

Specialization and the Use of GPS for Domestic Violence by Pretrial Programs: Findings from a National Survey of U.S. Practitioners

“…Prior research has measured EM's "effects" (e.g., on recidivism; Bales et al, 2010;Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney, 2000;Padgett, Bales, & Blomberg, 2006;Renzema & Mayo-Wilson, 2005), addressed the policy implications of using EM (e.g., for specific groups; Ball, Huff, & Lilly, 1988;Buchanan, 2008;Corbett & Marx, 1991;Medick, 2008;Satine, 2008), and documented the experiences of offenders (and to a lesser degree, victims) with EM (Erez & Ibarra, 2007;Erez, Ibarra, & Gur, 2013;Erez, Ibarra, & Lurie, 2004;Hucklesby, 2009;Ibarra & Erez, 2005;Payne & Gainey, 1998;Staples & Decker, 2008), but has not given commensurate attention to the organization of "justice work" by EM-using institutions (Bullock, 2011;Cheliotis, 2006;Hucklesby, 2011;Paterson & Clamp, 2014;Seiter & West, 2003). Focusing on EM/GPS technology in the context of domestic violence (DV) 1 cases during the pretrial stage, the current study analyzes practitioner views and agency practices as documented by a U.S.-based survey.…”

Juvenile Facility Staff Contestations of Change

“…Recent work has pointed to the role of state actors in their responses to and within systems of punishment and social control (Garland, 2013, Cheliotis, 2006. Scholars have highlighted the practices and perspectives of state actors, such as prosecutors, prison guards, and police officers, in the context of a penal field that is often deeply contested and dynamic, and where punishment and 'treatment' often merge (Page, 2011, Rubin and Phelps, 2017, Barker, 2009, Lacey and Soskice, 2015, Pfaff, 2017, Werth, 2017, Rudes et al, 2011, Stuart, 2016.…”