Suchergebnisse

This study examines the ways in which the moral community is "talked into being" in relation to crime, and the objects of concern that typically occupy its attention. It maps the imagined moral universe of the virtuous and the criminal and charts the relations between these two groups in the "history of the present." It examines the calls to action which symbolically endow the moral community with power. And it looks at the character and content of collective moralizing. The source materials are commentaries about crime and criminal justice appearing in selected newspapers across the Americas. The moral "talk" found there is stylized, routine, trivial and occasionally dramatic. It looks nothing like the weightier renderings of morality that derive from the reconstruction of a particular "ethic" or from the systematic probing of values and moral reasoning. And its fuzzy, offhand, unexceptional and frequently unsystematic nature makes it a difficult candidate for explaining either stability or change in crime policies. But moral talk has intrinsic importance as the creator and sustainer of an imagined moral community, a community that symbolizes the existence and vigor of morality itself and confers a crucially important identity on its self-proclaimed members. And moral talk reveals inherent intersections between normative, empirical and technical discourses, highlighting the relationships between morality, science and social engineering. Thus, a prosaic, instrumental, model of morality is particularly strong in North America, but only found in a more abstract form in Latin America, where it sits alongside a stirring vision of morality, more directly anchored in virtue. Research on social problems, moral panics and the sociology of morality has largely overlooked the type of moral discourse studied here. While emphasizing the culturally contingent nature of the findings, the conclusion reflects on their significance for understanding the nature of moralizing, the artifacts of talk and the construction of identity. Publisher's note

Recent references to the 'warehouse prison' in the United States and the prisión-depósito in Latin America seem to indicate that penal confinement in the Western Hemisphere has converged on a similar model. However, this article suggests otherwise. It contrasts penal facilities in North America and Latin America in terms of six interrelated aspects: regimentation; surveillance; isolation; supervision; accountability; and formalization. Quantitatively, control in North American penal facilities is assiduous (unceasing, persistent and intrusive), while in Latin America it is perfunctory (sporadic, indifferent and cursory). Qualitatively, North American penal facilities produce imprisonment (which enacts penal intervention through confinement), while in Latin America they produce internment (which enacts penal intervention through release). Closely entwined with this qualitative difference are distinct practices of judicial involvement in sentencing and penal supervision. Those practices, and the cultural and political factors that underpin them, represent an interesting starting point for the explanation of the contrasting nature of imprisonment and internment.

O discurso popular sobre o problema da inseguraça pessoal carrega três dimensões implícitas de análise. A primeira é uma postura moral, que se expressa nas qualificações de censura sobre o delito, os delinqüentes e as causas destes fenômenos. A segunda é a pretensão de afirmar algo sobre as características empíricas dos mesmos; e a terceira é o chamado para intervenir sobre eles ou a proposta de abordá-los, em termos programáticos, com uma técnica de intervenção específica. Estas dimensões remetem a três grandes áreas da produção intelectual – a ética, a ciência e a praxis – que, desde uma perspectiva racional, constituem os requisitos para definir, compreender e intervir sobre o problema do delito. A combinação das três na abordagem da delinqüência representa um ideal, dada a permanente condição de provisioriedade que devemos atribuir aos seus resultados. A busca deste ideal poderia ser denominada de enfoque humanístico na criminologia, merecendo o desenvolvimento de uma metodologia própria para atingi-lo nas condições atuais da investigação e intervenção sobre a delinqüência nas nossas sociedades. PALAVRA-CHAVE: criminologia, ciência, ética, praxis.THREE NECESSARY APPROACHES TO CRIMINOLOGY Christopher Birkbeck Popular discourse on the crime problem carries within it three types of analysis. The first is a moral posture, which is expressed in the terms of censure that are used when speaking about crime, criminals, or the causes of either. The second is the attempt to make empirical statements about these phenomena; and the third is the call to intervene or a proposal to use a particular kind of intervention technique. Each of these dimensions reflects a discrete area of intellectual activity which, from a rational perspective, is necessary for defining (ethics), understanding (science) and responding to (praxis) the problem at hand. Their combination in our approach to crime must be considered an ideal, given the permanently provisional nature of their intellectual products. Nevertheless, the pursuit of that ideal could be termed humanistic criminology – a perspective for which it be would be worthwhile to develop a method. KEYWORDS: criminology, science, ethics, praxis.TROIS FOCALISATIONS NÉCESSAIRES POUR LA CRIMINOLOGIE Christopher Birkbeck Le discours populaire concernant le problème d'insécurité individuelle comprend trois dimensions implicites d'analyse. La première dimension consiste en une attitude morale qui s'exprime dans les qualifications de censure concernant le délit, les délinquants et les causes de ces phénomènes. La deuxième dimension cherche à formuler des affirmations sur les caractéristiques empiriques de ces derniers et la troisième est un appel pour intervenir sur chacun d'eux ou la proposition de les aborder, en termes programmatiques, avec une technique d'intervention spécifique. Ces dimensions nous rapportent à trois grands domaines de production intellectuelle – l'éthique, la science et la praxis – qui, dans une perspective rationnelle, constituent les conditions pour définir, comprendre et intervenir sur le problème du délit. La combinaison de ces trois domaines pour l'abordage de la délinquance représente quelque chose d'idéal vu que les résultats doivent eux aussi toujours être considérés comme quelque chose de provisoire. On pourrait attribuer à la quête de cet idéal le nom de focalisation humanistique dans la criminologie, à partir du développement d'une méthodologie appropriée permettant de l'atteindre dans les conditions actuelles d'investigation et d'intervention sur la délinquance dans nos sociétés. MOTS-CLÉS: criminologie, science, ethique, praxis.Publicação Online do Caderno CRH no Scielo: http://www.scielo.br/ccrh Publicação Online do Caderno CRH: http://www.cadernocrh.ufba.br

El empleo reciente de términos como "warehouse prison" en Estados Unidos y "campo de concentración" en América Latina parecería indicar que las condiciones de privación de la libertad son distintas en ambas regiones. El análisis presentado aquí explora esas diferencias. Se comparan los establecimientos penales en América del Norte y América Latina através de seis dimensiones relacionadas entre sí: la organización interna de los espacios, la vigilancia, el aislamiento, la supervisión, el control administrativo y la formalización de los procedimientos. En América del Norte, el control es asiduo (persistente, intrusivo y casi permanente); en América Latina, el control es somero (esporádico, indiferente y superficial). Si en América del Norte se habla de prisiones y encarcelamiento, en América Latina parece mejor hablar de internados judiciales e internación. PALABRAS CLAVE: cárcel, prisión, internamiento, América del Norte, América Latina. PRISONS AND INTERNMENT: a comparison of penal facilities in North America and Latin America Christopher Howard Birkbeck The recent use of expressions such as "warehouse prison" in the U.S. and "concentration camp" in Latin America would seem to indicate that conditions of deprivation of freedom in both regions look more and more alike. The analysis presented here suggests that it is not so. Penal institutions in North and South America throughout six interrelated dimensions are compared: internal organization of the places, surveillance, isolation, supervision, administrative control and formalization of procedures. In North America, control is deep (persistent, intrusive and almost permanent); in Latin America, control is shallow (sporadic, indifferent and superficial). If in North America one speaks of prisons and incarceration, in Latin America it seems better to speak of judicial inmates and internment. KEY WORDS: prison, internment, North America, Latin America. PRISONS ET INTERNES: une comparaison des etablissements pénitentiaires en Amérique du Nord et en Amérique Latine Christopher Howard Birkbeck L'utilisation récente de termes tels que "prison d'entrepôt" aux Etats-Unis et "camp de concentration" en Amérique Latine semblerait indiquer que les conditions de détention dans ces deux régions du monde sont de plus en plus similaires. Cependant l'analyse réalisée à ce sujet suggère le contraire. La comparaison entre les prisons en Amérique du Nord et en Amérique Latine a été faite à partir de six critères interdépendants: l'organisation interne de l'espace, la surveillance, l'isolement, le contrôle de gestion et les procédures. En Amérique du Nord, le contrôle est assidu (persistant, intrus et pratiquement permanent), en Amérique Latine, le contrôle est apparent (sporadique, indifférent et superficiel). Si en Amérique du Nord, on parle de prisons et d'incarcération, en Amérique Latine, il vaudrait mieux parler d´internements judiciaires et d´internement. MOTS-CLÉS: incarcération, prison, internement, Amérique du Nord, Amérique Latine. Publicação Online do Caderno CRH: http://www.cadernocrh.ufba.br

El empleo reciente de términos como "warehouse prison" en Estados Unidos y "campo de concentración" en América Latina parecería indicar que las condiciones de privación de la libertad son distintas en ambas regiones. El análisis presentado aquí explora esas diferencias. Se comparan los establecimientos penales en América del Norte y América Latina a través de seis dimensiones relacionadas entre sí: la organización interna de los espacios, la vigilancia, el aislamiento, la supervisión, el control administrativo y la formalización de los procedimientos. En América del Norte, el control es asiduo (persistente, intrusivo y casi permanente); en América Latina, el control es somero (esporádico, indiferente y superficial). Si en América del Norte se habla de prisiones y encarcelamiento, en América Latina parece mejor hablar de internados judiciales e internación.