4.3 Article

Overcoming Penal Boundaries: Exploring The Evolution of Retributive Time Through Parole Decision-Making

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 37-54

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azab039

Keywords

retributive justice; penal time; temporality; sentencing; parole; decision-making

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The dynamics of retributive punishment over time are explored through qualitative findings from parole-board chairpersons in Israel, challenging the static conceptualization of retributive time and the instrumental view of parole decision-making. The findings call for future scholarly engagement with the evolution of punishment over time, questioning the assumed strict boundaries between sentencing and post-sentencing stages.
The relations between sentencing and post-sentencing stages (e.g., the implementation of prison, parole or community-based sanctions) are often perceived through temporal, spatial and normative binaries. The static time of retributive calibration-as fully known at sentencing time- stands at the heart of this separation. Through qualitative findings drawn from parole-board chairpersons in Israel, the paper argues that retributive punishment may evolve with time. As the findings suggest, parole decision-makers often go beyond risk and rehabilitation and reframe, reinterpret and renegotiate the dimensions of the deserved punishment. Three temporally dynamic themes of retributive discourses were described: (1) unexpected suffering review; (2) moral character revaluation; and (3) diminished censure reassessment. The findings challenge both the static conceptualization of retributive time and the instrumental view of parole decision-making. More generally, the findings question the assumed strict boundaries between sentencing and post-sentencing stages and call for future scholarly engagement with the evolution of punishment over time.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available