DOCSLIB.ORG

Handbook on Alternatives to Imprisonment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Handbook on Alternatives to Imprisonment Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS New York, 2007 Acknowledgements The Handbook on Alternatives to Imprisonment was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Dirk van Zyl Smit, Professor of Comparative and International Penal Law, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, formerly Professor of Criminology and Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town, South Africa. The handbook was reviewed at an expert group meeting held at UNODC in Vienna from 31 October to 1 November 2005. UNODC wishes to acknowledge the valuable contribu- tions received from the following experts who participated in that meeting: Alvaro A. Burgos Mata, Yvon Dandurand, Curt T. Griffiths, Nashaat H. Hussein, Kittipong Kittayarak, Tapio Lappi-Sepälä, Benjamin Naimark-Rowse, Adam Stapleton, and Vera Tkachenko. Also contributing throughout the development of the Handbook were Mark Shaw, Ricarda Amberg, Anna Giudice, Claudia Baroni, Bernardo Camara, and Miriam Magala of UNODC. Following the expert group meeting, the handbook was revised by Suzanne Schneider and Sharman Esarey, consultants to UNODC. UNODC also wishes to acknowledge the support provided by the governments of Canada, Sweden, and Norway toward the development of the handbook. United Nations publication Sales No. E.07.XI.2 ISBN 978-92-1-148220-1 This document has not been formally edited. Contents Introduction 1 1. Introducing alternatives to imprisonment 3 1.1 Why consider alternatives to imprisonment 3 1.2 What is to be done? 7 1.3 Who should develop the strategy to alternatives to imprisonment? 9 1.4 Potential challenges 9 1.5 The role of the United Nations 10 2. Limiting the criminal justice system’s reach 13 2.1 Decriminalization 13 2.2 Diversion 14 2.3 Who should act? 16 3. Pre-trial, pre-conviction and pre-sentencing processes 17 3.1 General 17 3.2 Alternatives to pre-trial detention 19 3.3 Considerations in implementing alternatives to pre-trial detention 20 3.4 Infrastructure requirements for alternatives to pre-trial detention 22 3.5 Who should act? 23 4. Sentencing and alternative punishments 25 4.1 Sentencing 25 4.2 Possible alternatives to sentences of imprisonment 26 4.3 Specific non-custodial sentences 28 4.4 Infrastructure requirements for sentencing alternatives 39 4.5 Choosing alternatives to imprisonment at the sentencing stage 41 4.6 Who should act? 45 5. Early release 47 5.1 Forms of early release 47 5.2 Early release: concerns and responses 50 iii 5.3 Early release on compassionate grounds 53 5.4 Conditional release and its administrative infrastructure 54 5.5. Who should act? 56 6. Special categories 57 6.1 General 57 6.2 Children 57 6.3 Drug offenders 62 6.4 Mental illness 66 6.5 Women 68 6.6 Over-represented groups 71 7. Toward a coherent strategy 73 7.1 Knowledge base 75 7.2 Political initiatives 75 7.3 Legislative reform 75 7.4 Infrastructure and resources 76 7.5 Net-widening 76 7.6 Monitoring 77 7.7 Promotion of alternatives 77 7.8 The media and alternatives to imprisonment 78 7.9 Justice and equality 78 Conclusion 79 iv Introduction This handbook is one of a series of practical tools developed by UNODC to support countries in the implementation of the rule of law and the development of criminal justice reform. It can be used in a variety of con- texts, including as part of UNODC technical assistance and capacity building projects. The handbook introduces the reader to the basic princi- ples central to understanding alternatives to imprisonment as well as descriptions of promising practices implemented throughout the world. A companion Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes is also available from UNODC. This handbook offers easily accessible information about alternatives to imprisonment at every stage of the criminal justice process; important considerations for the implementation of alternatives, including what var- ious actors must do to ensure its success; and examples of systems that have reduced imprisonment. The handbook has been written for criminal justice officials, non-governmental organizations, and members of the community who are working to reduce over-reliance on imprisonment; to improve the delivery of justice, including rehabilitation and reintegration; and to integrate international human rights-based standards and norms into local policies and practices. The handbook considers general strategies to reduce the reach of the criminal justice system and thus indirectly avoid the use of imprisonment. It also examines various aspects of alternatives to imprisonment that one may wish to consider when assessing the needs and demands of a country’s criminal justice system. Importantly, the handbook focuses 1 2 HANDBOOK OF BASIC PRINCIPLES AND PROMISING PRACTICES ON ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT systematically on the implementation of alternatives at the following phases of the criminal justice system: ț Pre-trial; ț Sentencing; ț Early release of sentenced prisoners. The handbook also highlights strategies to reduce imprisonment in four major groups for whom imprisonment has especially deleterious effects and who can benefit from alternatives at every level: ț Children; ț Drug users; ț The mentally ill; ț Women. Finally, the handbook presents the critical components that must be con- sidered in developing a strategy for the development and implementation of a comprehensive range of alternatives to imprisonment in order to reduce the prison population, listing not only key factors and elements, but also potential pitfalls and ways to avoid them. The handbook is not intended to serve as a policy prescription for specific sentencing alterna- tives, but rather, seeks to provide guidance on the implementation of various sentencing alternatives that integrate United Nations standards and norms. 1. Introducing alternatives to imprisonment 1.1 Why consider alternatives to imprisonment? Prisons are found in every country of the world. Policy-makers and administrators may therefore simply come to regard them as a given and not try actively to find alternatives to them. Yet imprisonment should not be taken for granted as the natural form of punishment. In many countries the use of imprisonment as a form of punishment is relatively recent. It may be alien to local cultural traditions that for millennia have relied on alter- native ways of dealing with crime. Further, imprisonment has been shown to be counterproductive in the rehabilitation and reintegration of those charged with minor crimes, as well as for certain vulnerable populations. Yet, in practice, the overall use of imprisonment is rising throughout the world, while there is little evidence that its increasing use is improving public safety. There are now more than nine million prisoners worldwide and that number is growing.1 The reality is that the growing numbers of prisoners are leading to often severe overcrowding in prisons. This is resulting in prison conditions that breach United Nations and other stan- dards that require that all prisoners be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings. 1R. Walmsley, World Prison Population List, International Centre of Prison Studies, King’s College, London, 2005. 3 4 HANDBOOK OF BASIC PRINCIPLES AND PROMISING PRACTICES ON ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT There are several important reasons for the primary focus to be upon alternatives that reduce the number of people in prison and for imprison- ment to be used only as a last resort:2 Imprisonment and human rights Individual liberty is one of the most fundamental of human rights, recog- nized in international human rights instruments and national constitutions throughout the world. In order to take that right away, even temporarily, governments have a duty to justify the use of imprisonment as necessary to achieve an important societal objective for which there are no less restrictive means with which the objective can be achieved. The loss of liberty that results from imprisonment is inevitable but, in practice, imprisonment regularly impinges several other human rights as well. In many countries of the world, prisoners are deprived of basic amenities of life. They are often held in grossly overcrowded conditions, poorly clothed and underfed. They are particularly vulnerable to disease and yet are given poor medical treatment. They find it difficult to keep in contact with their children and other family members. Such conditions may literally place the lives of prisoners at risk. Increasingly, human rights courts and tribunals have recognized that sub- jecting prisoners to such conditions denies their human dignity. Such conditions have been held to be inhuman and degrading. All too often, the majority of these prisoners may be low-level offenders, many of whom may be awaiting trial, who could be dealt with using appropriate alterna- tives instead of being imprisoned. Implementing effective alternatives to imprisonment will reduce overcrowding and make it easier to manage prisons in a way that will allow states to meet their basic obligations to the prisoners in their care. Imprisonment is expensive The cost of imprisonment worldwide is hard to calculate, but the best estimates are in the region of US$ 62.5 billion per year using 1997 statis- tics.3 Direct costs include building and administering prisons as well as housing, feeding, and caring for prisoners. There are also significant indi- rect or consequential costs, for imprisonment may affect the wider com- munity in various negative ways. For example, prisons are incubators of diseases such as tuberculosis and AIDS, especially so when they are over- crowded. When prisoners are released, they may contribute to the further spread of such diseases. 2See also Matti Joutsen and Uglješa Zvekic, “Noncustodial sanctions: Comparative Overview” in Uglješa Zvekic (ed.), Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, UNICRI/Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1994, pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Human Factor in Prison Design: Contrasting Prison Architecture in the United States and Scandinavia
    The Human Factor in Prison Design: Contrasting Prison Architecture in the United States and Scandinavia Prison design is a controversial topic in the field of architecture. The “all- seeing” Panopticon prison of the eighteenth century introduced by British social reformer Jeremy Bentham brought academic attention to the issue of prison design. Two centuries later, French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault used the Panopticon as a metaphor for society and its power to control beyond the physical. MEGAN FOWLER In the United States, there are two penal and prison systems -- the Pennsylvania Iowa State University System and the Auburn System. The Pennsylvania penitentiary system was influ- enced by the idea of penitence; solitude was thought to serve as punishment as well as giving time for reflection and contrition. The prison designs often recall the Panopticon with centralized configurations. The opposing system is known as the Auburn System, after the eponymous facility in New York, where impris- onment was punishment instead of a chance for reformation. It was at Auburn where the core idea of total surveillance from Bentham’s Panopticon became a reality. The Auburn system and corresponding architecture have been described as “machine-like” where prisoners are kept in tiny cells under total control. Since the 19th century, the Auburn System has predominated prison design and theory in the United States.1 In American society today some resist involving architects in creating prison facilities. “Architecture” for these buildings is discouraged.2 The environments in American prisons create opportunities for violence, tension, and hostility in inmates.3 Even employees in American prisons have been found to have a higher risk of various stress-related health issues.4 In 2013, Pelican Bay super- max prison, with its “8x10-foot, soundproof, poured-concrete cells with remote controlled doors and no windows,” provoked hunger strikes across California in solidarity for the appalling living conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline
    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • CH 12 Contempt of Court
    CONTEMPT OF COURT .............................................................................. 1 §12-1 General Rules .............................................................................................. 1 §12-2 Direct Contempt and Indirect Contempt ............................................. 4 §12-3 Conduct of Counsel and Pro Se Litigant .............................................. 9 §12-4 Violating Court Orders ........................................................................... 14 §12-5 Other Conduct .......................................................................................... 17 §12-6 Sentencing ................................................................................................. 19 i CONTEMPT OF COURT §12-1 General Rules United States Supreme Court Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974) An alleged contemnor may be summarily tried for acts of contempt that occur during a trial, and may receive a sentence of no more than six months. In addition, the judge may summarily convict and punish for separate contemptuous acts that occur during trial even though the aggregate punishment exceeds six months. However, when a judge postpones until after trial contempt proceedings for various acts of contempt committed during trial, the contemnor is entitled to a jury trial if the aggregate sentence is more than six months, even though each individual act of contempt is punished by a term of less than six months. Gelbard v. U.S., 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972) In defense to a contempt charge brought on the basis of a grand jury witness's refusal to obey government orders to testify before the grand jury, witness may invoke federal statute barring use of intercepted wire communications as evidence. Groppe v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496, 92 S.Ct. 582, 30 L.Ed.2d 632 (1972) Due process was violated where, without notice or opportunity to be heard, state legislature passed resolution citing person for contempt that occurred two days earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for More Incarceration
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Policy and Communications Office of Policy Development The Case for More Incarceration 1992 &7 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Policy and Communications Office of Policy Development The Case for More Incarceration 1992, NCJ-J39583 139583 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the Ph~rson or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in t IS do.c~ment ~~e those of (he authors and do not necessarily rep'esent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permtisdsion to reproduce this II f) I8llM material has been gran~d t:1y • . • .l?UbllC Danain/Off. of Poliey Communications/Off. of POlley Develop. to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Ffutrthher repr?ductlon outside of the NCJRS system requires permission o e ........ owner. NCJRS ~AN 5 1993 ACQUISITIONS (@ffitt nf tltt Attnrntl1 <&tntral liIus1yingtnn, i.QT. 20530 October 28, 1992 In July, I released a report entitled Combating Violent Crime: 24 Recommendations to strengthen Criminal Justice, set­ ting forth a comprehensive strategy for making state criminal justice systems more effective in achieving their central purpose -- the protection of our citizens. As I stated then, there is no better way to reduce crime than to identify, target, and incapa­ citate those hardened criminals who commit staggering numbers of violent crimes whenever they are on the streets. Of course, we cannot incapacitate these criminals unless we build sufficient prison and jail space to house them.
    [Show full text]
  • “An Open Prison Without End” WATCH Myanmar’S Mass Detention of Rohingya in Rakhine State
    HUMAN RIGHTS “An Open Prison without End” WATCH Myanmar’s Mass Detention of Rohingya in Rakhine State “An Open Prison without End” Myanmar’s Mass Detention of Rohingya in Rakhine State Copyright © 2020 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-62313-8646 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org OCTOBER 2020 ISBN: 978-1-62313-8646 “An Open Prison without End” Myanmar’s Mass Detention of Rohingya in Rakhine State Maps ................................................................................................................................ i Table .............................................................................................................................. iii Summary ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Restorative Justice and the Judiciary Information Pack
    Restorative justice and the judiciary Information pack October 2015 Restorative justice and the judiciary information pack 1 Contents 3 Introduction by Jon Collins 4 The facts on restorative justice 5 Restorative justice and the judiciary 10 Checklist for restorative justice 11 Why the judiciary can have confidence in restorative justice 12 Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court by Richard Monkhouse 14 Pre-sentence restorative justice national pathfinder programme by Kate Hook 16 Ed and Rumbie’s story 18 Restorative justice in the youth courts by Pete Wallis 19 Restorative justice as part of a community sentence 20 Shad’s story 22 Henry’s story 2 Restorative justice and the judiciary information pack Introduction This information pack has been developed by the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) to raise awareness of restorative justice among the judiciary. The RJC is the independent third sector membership body for the restorative justice field. Our role, with the support of the Ministry of Justice, is to promote access to high quality restorative justice for all victims of crime in England and Wales. The information contained in this pack is intended to help the judiciary understand more about restorative justice and found that 77% of people believe that victims their role in the restorative justice process. of crime should have the right to meet their offender. Restorative justice is an effective response to crime. It empowers victims by giving them a Restorative justice also has the support of the chance to meet or communicate with their government. Their genuine commitment to offender to explain the real impact of the embed it within every stage of the criminal crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies on Collingwood, History and Civilization
    Studies on Collingwood, History and Civilization Jan van der Dussen Studies on Collingwood, History and Civilization Jan van der Dussen Heerlen , The Netherlands ISBN 978-3-319-20671-4 ISBN 978-3-319-20672-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20672-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015951386 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www. springer.com) Acknowledgements The following four essays are reproduced from their original publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare, Achievement, and Self-Sacrifice
    WELFARE, ACHIEVEMENT, AND SELF-SACRIFICE BY DOUGLAS W. PORTMORE JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. 2, NO. 2 | SEPTEMBER 2007 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT © DOUGLAS W. PORTMORE 2007 JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | VOL. 2, NO. 2 WELFARE, ACHIEVEMENT, AND SELF-SACRIFICE Douglas W. Portmore Welfare, Achievement, and Self-Sacrifice Douglas W. Portmore* ANY PHILOSOPHERS HOLD that the achievement of one’s goals can contribute to one’s welfare apart from whatever inde- pendent contributions that the objects of those goals, or the proc- M 1 esses by which they are achieved, make. Call this the Achievement View, and call those who accept it achievementists. Below, I argue that achievementists should accept both (a) that one factor that affects how much the achieve- ment of a goal contributes to one’s welfare is the amount that one has in- vested in that goal, and (b) that the amount that one has invested in a goal is a function of how much one has personally sacrificed for its sake, not a func- tion of how much effort one has put into achieving it. So I will, contrary to at least one achievementist (viz., Keller 2004, 36), be arguing against the view that the greater the amount of productive effort that goes into achieving a goal, the more its achievement contributes to one’s welfare. Furthermore, I argue that the reason that the achievement of those goals for which one has personally sacrificed matters more to one’s welfare is that, in general, the re- demption of one’s self-sacrifices in itself contributes to one’s welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • A Judgement-Based Model of Workplace Learning 63 Volume 44, Number 1, April 2004
    Australian Journal of Adult Learning A judgement-based model of workplace learning 63 Volume 44, Number 1, April 2004 learning as an individual and social process (Illeris 2003). This paper offers a macro-level of analysis for social learning, especially in the context where there is no single, clearly identifi ed, correct response. Its origins lie in a model of workplace learning derived from Hager and Halliday (2002), who fi rst set out a relationship between context, judgement and learning. They saw learning as concerned with judgements that are potentially fallible but also contextually sensitive (Halliday & Hager 2002). Their central theme is a link between judgement and learning: ‘making judgements is a central holistic workplace activity that is the expression of practice-based informal learning from work’ (cited in Hager 2001, p.352). A judgement-based model of workplace learning These workplace-learning conceptions are directly related to all James A Athanasou adult, social learning and were translated into a testable Perceptual- University of Technology, Sydney Judgemental-Reinforcement model (Athanasou 2002) that is depicted in Figure 1. This representation emphasises the fact that learning encompasses judgements and is contextually dependent and The purpose of this paper is to outline a judgement-based model purposive, but the components and processes in the model described of adult learning. This approach is set out as a Perceptual- in this paper vary substantially in detail from the original Hager- Judgemental-Reinforcement approach to social learning under Halliday conceptions (Hager 2001; Hager & Halliday 2002). In this conditions of complexity and where there is no single, clearly paper, learning is defi ned both in its traditional and psychological identifi ed correct response.
    [Show full text]
  • From Slavery to Mass Incarceration
    loïc wacquant FROM SLAVERY TO MASS INCARCERATION Rethinking the ‘race question’ in the US ot one but several ‘peculiar institutions’ have success- ively operated to define, confine, and control African- NAmericans in the history of the United States. The first is chattel slavery as the pivot of the plantation economy and inceptive matrix of racial division from the colonial era to the Civil War. The second is the Jim Crow system of legally enforced discrimination and segregation from cradle to grave that anchored the predominantly agrarian society of the South from the close of Reconstruction to the Civil Rights revolution which toppled it a full century after abolition. America’s third special device for containing the descendants of slaves in the Northern industrial metropolis is the ghetto, corresponding to the conjoint urbanization and proletarianization of African-Americans from the Great Migration of 1914–30 to the 1960s, when it was ren- dered partially obsolete by the concurrent transformation of economy and state and by the mounting protest of blacks against continued caste exclusion, climaxing with the explosive urban riots chronicled in the Kerner Commission Report.1 The fourth, I contend here, is the novel institutional complex formed by the remnants of the dark ghetto and the carceral apparatus with which it has become joined by a linked relationship of structural symbiosis and functional surrogacy. This suggests that slavery and mass imprisonment are genealogically linked and that one cannot understand the latter—its new left review 13 jan feb 2002 41 timing, composition, and smooth onset as well as the quiet ignorance or acceptance of its deleterious effects on those it affects—without return- ing to the former as historic starting point and functional analogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Scales As a Symbol of Metaphysical Judgement – from Misterium Tremendum to Misterium Fascinosum an Analysis of Selected Works of Netherlandish Masters of Painting
    Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2/2015 (1): 259-274 DOI: 10.4467/2450050XSR.15.022.4520 VARIA Karol Dobrzeniecki* [email protected] Faculty of Law and Administration of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń ul. Władysława Bojarskiego 3 87-100 Toruń, Poland Scales as a Symbol of Metaphysical Judgement – from Misterium Tremendum to Misterium Fascinosum An Analysis of Selected Works of Netherlandish Masters of Painting Abstract: The aim of this article is to analyze the motif of scales in Netherlandish art from the 15th to the 17th century. The motif of scales was present in art from earliest times, but its role and func- tion differed in various historical epochs – antique, the middle ages, and the modern age. The core part of the article is devoted to the symbolic relationship between scales and different aspects of justice. The first painting taken into consideration is Rogier van der Weyden’s Last Judgment (approx. 1445 to 1450), and the last one – Jan Vermeer’s Woman Holding a Balance (approx. 1662-1663). The article attempts to answer some crucial questions. What were the meanings attributed to scales during the two centuries exam- ined? How did these meanings evolve, and was the interpretation of the symbol influenced by the ethos characteristic for particular peri- ods and geographical spaces, as well as transient fashions, religious * Karol Dobrzeniecki, Doctor of Law and art historian, currently serves as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Theory of Law and State, Faculty of Law and Administration of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland.
    [Show full text]