The Liberal Model of Criminal Repression in the European Space


  • Denisa Barbu alahia University of Targoviste, Department of Public Administration, Romania



liberal model of criminal repression, retributive justice, restorative justice


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.

Author Biography

Denisa Barbu, alahia University of Targoviste, Department of Public Administration, Romania

Associate Professor PhD, Valahia University of Targoviste, Department of Public Administration, Romania


Apostu, I. (2016). The Two Dimensions of Infidelity. Postmodern Openings, 7(2), 167-178.

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.

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.

Brown, M. (2002). The Politics of Penal Excess and the Echo of Colonial Penalty. Punishment and Society, 4(4), 403-423.

Clear, T.R. (1996). The Punitive Paradox: Desert and the Compultion to Punish. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), 94-108.

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.

Cullen, F., & Wozniak, J. (1982). Fighting the Appeal of Repression. Crime and Social Justice, 18, 23-33.

Durkheim, E. (2012). Moral Education. Dover Publications.

Ellis, L. (1986). Evolution and the nonlegal equivalent of aggressive criminal behavior. Aggr. Behav., 12, 57-71.<57::AID-AB2480120108>3.0.CO;2-5

Federal Ministry of Justice. (2021). German Criminal Code.

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.

Johnson, B.D., & Dipietro, S.M. (2012). The Power of Diversion: Intermediate Sanctions and Sentencing Disparity under Presumptive Guidelines. Criminology, 50, 811-850.

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.

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.

Packer, H.L. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1).

Petersilia, J. (1999). A Decade of Experimenting with Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned? Justice Research and Policy, 1(1), 9–23.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Harvard Law Review Association (1966). The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Substantive Criminal Law. Harvard Law Review, 79(3), 635-655.

Tonry, M. (2001). Symbol, Substance and Severity in Western Penal Policies. Punishment and Society, 3(4), 517-536.

Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate Sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20.




How to Cite

Barbu, D. (2022). The Liberal Model of Criminal Repression in the European Space. Postmodern Openings, 13(4), 376-388.



Postmodern Society

Publish your work at the Scientific Publishing House LUMEN

It easy with us: publish now your work, novel, research, proceeding at Lumen Scientific Publishing House

Send your manuscript right now