The Liberal Model of Criminal Repression in the European Space
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/po/13.4/523Keywords:
liberal model of criminal repression, retributive justice, restorative justiceAbstract
The transformations that have occurred at the state economic level, the change in the trends of opinion that animate postmodern societies, the increase in population have strongly affected the crime rate in the last 10-20 years in all the states of the world. The trends in the matter of sanctions vary greatly, whether it is the frequency of custodial sentences, the harshness - in general - of criminal sentences, the preference for punishments whose special maximums are higher or lower or the adoption of some alternative measures to imprisonment or even criminal justice in general. Many of the new criminal policies are justifiable in the context of the national law of states, but few have a real chance of globalization. Penal reform was or is on the working table of all states of the world. The details vary from case to case, but the trend is general. The Scandinavian countries modified their sanctioning system and created new punishments, the Western European countries created systems for sanctioning and re-educating delinquents in an extra-criminal regime, in the U.S. one can note, paradoxically, the generalized tightening of punishments, a model followed by Great Britain and Australia, but at a lower level. There is a continuous debate at the level of legal doctrine on the appropriateness of adopting an authoritarian system of repression in criminal matters. This article aims to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the liberal model of criminal repression in the European space, in the context of the phenomenon of globalization.
References
Apostu, I. (2016). The Two Dimensions of Infidelity. Postmodern Openings, 7(2), 167-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.18662/po/2016.0702.11
Bassiouni, M. C. (1993). Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions. 3 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L., 235.
Bayer, R. (1978). Heroin Addiction, Criminal Culpability, and the Penal Sanction: The Liberal Response to Repressive Social Policy. Crime & Delinquency, 24(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877802400207
Bernburg, J.G. (2019). Labeling Theory. In: Krohn, M., Hendrix, N., Penly Hall, G., Lizotte, A. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_10
Brown, M. (2002). The Politics of Penal Excess and the Echo of Colonial Penalty. Punishment and Society, 4(4), 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474502004004044
Clear, T.R. (1996). The Punitive Paradox: Desert and the Compultion to Punish. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427896033001006
Coffee, J.C. (1992). Paradigms Lost: The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models--And What Can be Done about It. Yale L.J., 101, 1875-1893.
Coulson, G. E., & Nutbrown, V. (1992). Properties of an Ideal Rehabilitative Program for High-Need Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36(3), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X9203600304
Cullen, F., & Wozniak, J. (1982). Fighting the Appeal of Repression. Crime and Social Justice, 18, 23-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766163
Durkheim, E. (2012). Moral Education. Dover Publications.
Ellis, L. (1986). Evolution and the nonlegal equivalent of aggressive criminal behavior. Aggr. Behav., 12, 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1986)12:1<57::AID-AB2480120108>3.0.CO;2-5
Federal Ministry of Justice. (2021). German Criminal Code. www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/
Hart, H.L.A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
Huidu, A. (2019). The Psychopathology of Serial Killers. Eastern-European Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, 3(1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.18662/eejmhb.19
Johnson, B.D., & Dipietro, S.M. (2012). The Power of Diversion: Intermediate Sanctions and Sentencing Disparity under Presumptive Guidelines. Criminology, 50, 811-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00279.x
Loughran, T.A., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A.R. & Pogarsky, G. (2011). On Ambiguity in Perceptions of Risk: Implications for Criminal Decision Making and Deterrence. Criminology, 49, 1029-1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00251.x
Marcuse, H. (1969). Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. Beacon
Marinos, V. (2005). Thinking about Penal Equivalents. Punishment and Society, 7(4), 441-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474505057120
Packer, H.L. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1). https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/pnlr113&div=9&id=&page=
Petersilia, J. (1999). A Decade of Experimenting with Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned? Justice Research and Policy, 1(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.1.1.1999.9
Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1994a). Perceptions of Punishment: Inmates and Staff Rank the Severity of Prison Versus Intermediate Sanctions. The Prison Journal, 74(3), 306–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855594074003003
Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (1994b). What Punishes? Inmates Rank The Severity of Prison vs. Intermediate Sanctions. Federal Probation, 58(1), 3-8.
Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A.P. (2003). Can Punishment Encourage Offending? Investigating the „Resetting” Effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427802239255
Pradel, J. (2002). Droit pénal comparé, 2e édition. dalloz.
Schauffler, R., & Hannigan, M. (1974). Criminology at Berkeley: Resisting Academic Repression, Part 2. Crime and Social Justice, 2, 42–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29765908
Smith, D. (2001). Electronic Monitoring of Offenders. The Scottish Experience. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1(2), 201-214.
Spelman, W. (1995). The Severity of Intermediate Sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(2), 107-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427895032002001
The Harvard Law Review Association (1966). The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Substantive Criminal Law. Harvard Law Review, 79(3), 635-655. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339087
Tonry, M. (2001). Symbol, Substance and Severity in Western Penal Policies. Punishment and Society, 3(4), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624740122228401
Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate Sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20. https://doi.org/10.1086/449242
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Postmodern Openings Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
