The London School of Economics and Political Science UNDERSTANDINGS OF PUNISHMENT AND JUSTICE IN THE NARRATIVES OF LAY POLISH PEOPLE Anna Matczak A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London, 6th March 2017 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 94,997 words, excluding the appendices and bibliography. I can confirm that my thesis was proofread for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Kate Helliwell and Matthew Willis. 2 Acknowledgements My PhD has been a challenging, but enormously fascinating, journey - the idea of which originated in a little village in the north-west of Poland. The completion of this doctoral endeavour would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many wonderful people. I thank first and foremost my mum who has been a pillar of strength throughout. I thank her immensely for her endless support, guiding wisdom and laughter during the most difficult times. I would like to thank my supervisors Bridget Hutter and Janet Foster, for their patient guidance and useful critiques of this research work. I am moreover grateful to Paul Rock for his invaluable and constructive comments at the last stage of this journey. I also wish to thank my wonderful friends for their constant encouragement: Kate Helliwell, Anna Sowińska, Marta Pijewska, Lucja Soskova, Maria Psoinos, Mai Sato, Lisa Sezer, Shalinee Basak, Matthew Willis, Ivana Ondrejova, Dorota Krogulewska, Mini Sinha, Nuno Palma, Katherine Auty, Sarabvijay Singh, Aproop Bhave, Gerardo Sera, Kevin Seccombe, Mateusz Skrzydłowski, Krzysztof Żmuda, Lilia Kamenow, Magdalena Machalska,. My Ph.D. years were filled with many inspirational conversations with fantastic academics and mentors, and for these I would like to wholeheartedly thank: Martin Wright, Ray Jones, Jeremy Ross, Keith Davis, Rachel Pistol, Marianne Colbran, Theo Gavrielides, Mike Hough, Sian Lewis, Ian Marder. In memoriam of my beloved Grandma. The end of our exploring, will be to arrive where we started. And know the place for the first time. (T.S. Eliot, 1943) 3 Abstract This research brings to light the Polish context of a post-socialist, post-transformation society of peasant roots and high religiosity which greatly contributes to the comparative criminological scholarship. The purpose of this doctoral research is to explore how a small number of Polish people understand punishment and justice, and how their narratives inform the viability of restorative approaches to justice. In so doing, this research recognises the value of lay opinion in the discussion of punishment and justice, and approaches punishment and justice as social activities, which echoes the argument that stories about crime and punishment are entangled with people’s daily routines, and as a result are lodged in their cultural imagination (see Garland & Sparks, 2000). The socialist past, hasty transition from socialism to democracy and from a centrally-planned to free market economy has influenced participants’ perceptions of the justice administration and the institutions involved in these processes. Lay Polish people shall be seen as Homo post-Sovieticus, whose perceptions of punishment and justice need to be analysed along with the legacy of the previous socialist system as well as post-1989 changes. Participants’ perceptions of the Polish criminal justice system, the Polish police and unpaid work assist to understand a number of factors that might influence the development of restorative justice in the Polish context. The findings of this study also encourage broadening the scope of the restorative justice discussion and examining its preconditions against wider sociological and criminological discourses on punishment and justice. Although the relationship might be defined as ‘uneasy’, restorative justice, since its conception, is interwoven with the two. One of restorative justice’s central hopes was to establish an alternative system of crime resolution that would eliminate the infliction of pain. However, the trajectory of restorative practices and demonstrates that the functioning of a majority of them is dependent on the criminal justice agencies and that there is a need to address better the notion of punishment in restorative encounters. 4 List of tables Table 1. Recent crime trends in Poland Table 2. Fear of crime in Poland 1987-2015 Table 3. Attitudes to the death penalty in Poland 1987-2011 Table 4. Public trust in criminal justice institutions in Poland (1987-2011) Table 5. Routine contact with the Polish police 5 Table of contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4 List of tables ............................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I................................................................................................................................... 10 1. Justice ............................................................................................................................ 11 2. Punishment .................................................................................................................... 22 3. The paradox and value of lay opinion........................................................................... 28 4. The significance of the Polish context .......................................................................... 34 5. The scope of this thesis ................................................................................................. 36 Chapter II ................................................................................................................................. 38 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 38 2. 1944-1989: the time of ‘Komuna’ ................................................................................ 39 2.1. Socialist criminal justice system............................................................................ 40 2.2. Lay people in the socialist criminal justice system ............................................... 43 2.3. Parasitism............................................................................................................... 46 2.4. Censorship ............................................................................................................. 48 2.5. Attitudes under the communist regime .................................................................. 49 3. Post -1989 penal system................................................................................................ 51 3.1. Post-1989 attitudes among Poles ........................................................................... 61 3.2. Restorative justice.................................................................................................. 67 In conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 81 Chapter III ................................................................................................................................ 82 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 82 2. An escape from quantitative dominance ....................................................................... 82 3. Fieldwork ...................................................................................................................... 84 6 3.1. Entering the field ................................................................................................... 84 3.2. Theoretically informed sampling........................................................................... 86 4. Focus Groups ................................................................................................................ 88 4.1. Recruitment strategy in rural settings .................................................................... 90 4.2. Recruitment strategy in urban settings .................................................................. 91 4.3. Focus group settings .............................................................................................. 94 4.4. Group composition ................................................................................................ 97 4.5. Focus group discussions ........................................................................................ 98 5. In-depth interviews ......................................................................................................