What Were 'They' Thinking, and Does It Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform

30 Pages Posted: 20 Jun 2019 Last revised: 23 Oct 2019

See all articles by Hadar Aviram

Hadar Aviram

University of California, Hastings College of the Law

Date Written: June 14, 2019

Abstract

In Visions of Social Control (1985) Stanley Cohen provided a typology of scholarly works on the punitive turn: “uneven progress”, “good intentions-disastrous consequences”, and “discipline and mystification.” This essay applies these categories to recent punishment and society scholarship, finding a clear preference for the third category, arguing that current works do not merely point to systemic evils—they impute bad intent to individuals in the system. Against this current, I identify two works—James Forman’s Locking Up Our Own (2017) and Heather Schoenfeld’s Building the Prison State (2016)—and show the strengths of analyses that take individual actors on their own terms. Finally, relying on the recent example of the Ban-the-Box policy—a well-intended but failed policy—I argue that flexibility in viewing actors’ motivations, rather than relegating them to the role of cogs in a system fraught by inherent flaws, is important not only for scholarly accuracy but for policy and strategic reasons.

Keywords: punishment, intent, mass incarceration, ban the box

JEL Classification: k

Suggested Citation

Aviram, Hadar, What Were 'They' Thinking, and Does It Matter? Structural Inequality and Individual Intent in Criminal Justice Reform (June 14, 2019). Law and Social Inquiry, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404312

Hadar Aviram (Contact Author)

University of California, Hastings College of the Law ( email )

200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
45
Abstract Views
280
PlumX Metrics