Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst leidis oma koha peamiselt põhjusel, et näitab, kuidas karistuse tähendus ja eesmärgid on ajas muutunud ning esitab ka põhjused, kuid ühtlasi vastustab ja seab kahtluse alla mitmeid tuntud aksioome. Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele turvalisushuvilistele, kuid eeskätt ehk politseinikele ja poliitikakujundajatele.


“Crime prevention programmes, we are told, are the result of leftist and centrist parties adapting to the neoliberal environment, which has limited their policy options (Crawford, 2001; Hughes, 2002; McLaughlin, 2002; Pitts, 2001). […] Centrally, these studies of ‘neoliberal penality’ and ‘pre-crime’ rest upon a contrast with a previous era of ‘penal welfarism’ (Garland, 1985b, 2002).” (Heath-Kelly and Shanaáh, 2022, p. 358)

Küsimused ootavad vastust:

“In detailing this international criminological history, the article questions many assumptions made in Criminology about: (1) the strict separation of eras of ‘penal welfarism’ and ‘neoliberal penality’, especially concerning claims made about the emergence of pre-crime and prevention-oriented criminal justice in the neoliberal era; and (2) the presentation of a recent ‘securitization’ of criminal justice.” (Heath-Kelly and Shanaáh, 2022, p. 359)

David Garlandi panus:

“Centrally, Garland has identified the political and economic transformations which informed the shift from classical penality to penal welfarism in the UK, and then from penal welfarism to neoliberal penality. He shows that criminal justice in the Victorian era reflected the dominant liberal economics of the time, centring the minimal state (which performed a ‘night watchman’ role to ensure only social stability and the stability of economic contracts—see also Zedner, 2009) and conceptions of the individual as a freely choosing, rational actor […] Finally, completing the account of how penality maps onto political and economic shifts, Garland tracks the rise of ‘social control’ as the dominant frame for penality in the era of neoliberal economics—transforming the understanding of offenders, and crime, into the realms of opportunity reduction, actuarial prediction and the ‘responsibilization’ of sub-state and private actors for crime control.” (Heath-Kelly and Shanaáh, 2022, p. 360)

Sotsiaalkaitse ja ÜRO algatus:

“The UN founded a Social Defence section to lead on international crime policy in 1946, with the objectives of preventing crime through progressive social policy measures, establishing human rights informed standards for prisoners and directing penal policy towards the effective rehabilitation of offenders.” (Heath-Kelly and Shanaáh, 2022, p. 365)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“While Anglophone states have recently retreated from rehabilitation-oriented criminal justice towards a more retributive footing, and while the development of statistical risk-assessment tools have accelerated the move from postcrime to pre-crime approaches, the history of international criminological forums demonstrates the longstanding presence of pre-crime ontology throughout the post-war era. […] Crime prevention fora at the international level fundamentally exceeded the remit of ‘categorization’ and ‘individualization of punishments’, remaining convinced (alapositivism and ‘old’ Social Defence) that crime’s environmental and social causes could be identified and that societies (and individuals) could be engineered to prevent future offences.” (Heath-Kelly and Shanaáh, 2022, p. 372)

Heath-Kelly, C., & Shanaáh, Š. (2022). The long history of prevention: Social Defence, security and anticipating future crimes in the era of ‘penal welfarism.’ Theoretical Criminology26(3), 357–376.