Enemy parole
Published date | 01 July 2023 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221092983 |
Author | Netanel Dagan |
Date | 01 July 2023 |
Enemy parole
Netanel Dagan
The Institute of Criminology, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem
Abstract
Pushing and expanding the boundaries of the ‘criminology of the other’and ‘enemy pen-
ology’to the post-sentencing phase, this study aims to analyse parole for terror-related
prisoners. For doing so, the study thematically analysed 207 decisions of the Israeli
parole board for individuals labelled as ‘security prisoners’. It found that for security
prisoners, the parole board employs a distorted version of the more discretionary-
individualised logic that applies to ordinary prisoners. When performing such ‘enemy
parole’–and overwhelmingly denying parole to security prisoners –the parole board
uses three conflicting discourses: security-group logic,responsibilisation and resentencing.
Through these discourses, the parole board negotiates the categories of self/other
and citizen/enemy in order to suspend the reintegrative components of ‘citizen parole’.
In conclusion, ‘enemy parole’is constructed as an exclusionary, punitive and exceptional
process disguised as inclusionary, equal and legitimate.
Keywords
criminology of the self/other, decision-making, enemy penology, parole, security,
terrorism, risk-management
Introduction
High-profile terror events in recent years have encouraged many Western systems,
including those of the U.S., UK, Australia and Canada, to treat terrorism through
various counter-terrorism measures (Ashworth and Zedner 2014; Monaghan 2012).
Scholars have dedicated considerable attention to debating the exceptional practices of
the ‘war on terror’within policing (Ashworth and Zedner 2014), interrogation and
Corresponding author:
Netanel Dagan, The Institute of Criminology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.
Email: netanel.dagan@mail.huji.ac.il
Article
Punishment & Society
2023, Vol. 25(3) 600–620
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14624745221092983
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
rendition (Hajjar 2005), trial, sentencing (Diab 2011) and ‘terror-carceralism’(Monaghan
2012; Murray 2014). Scholars have likewise shown increasing interest in post-release
supervision (Cherney 2021; Weggemans and De Graaf 2017). However, the paroling
of terror-related prisoners has attracted surprisingly little academic interest (Cherney
2021; Sebba 2011; Wilkinson 2014).
Paroling terror-related prisoners is situated in a unique intersection. It stands between
the inclusionary logic of parole that aims –at least theoretically –to encourage reintegra-
tion of fellow ‘citizens’into society (Padfield et al. 2010; Rhine et al. 2017) and the exclu-
sionary and exceptional logic of security reserved for those defined as ‘others’and
‘enemies’(Monaghan 2012). The paper aims to push the boundaries of the ‘criminology
of the other’(Garland 2001) and ‘enemy penology’(Krasmann 2007, 2018) from a ‘pre-
crime’to a ‘post-sentencing’framework (Ashworth and Zedner 2014; Weber and
McCulloch 2019). It will do so through exploring the collision between the discretionary
and individualised logic of parole and the sphere of terror-related prisoners. The paper
draws upon a thematic analysis of 207 decisions by the Israeli parole board (‘board’)
for individuals convicted of terror offences and classified as ‘security prisoners’by
the Israeli Prison Service (IPS). The paper finds that parole for security prisoners –
conceptualised as ‘enemy parole’–is a distorted version of the more individualised
and inclusionary ‘citizen parole’employed for ordinary prisoners. The construction of
enemy parole is dualistic. On the one hand, parole for security prisoners, purportedly,
is inclusive, discretionary and individualised. On the other hand, it focuses on exclusion,
group-logic and punitiveness that necessitate parole denial. Such process is performed
through the three discourses of security-group logic,responsibilisation and resentencing
that carefully negotiate the categories of self/other and citizen/enemy to construct enemy
parole as a legitimate exception to the reintegrative vision of ‘citizen parole’.
Theoretical background
Criminology of the other and enemy penology
Garland (2001: 137) has argued that from the 1980s governments have increasingly relied
upon criminological assumptions that are generally ‘dualistic’and ‘polarised’. These
assumptions contain contradictions between a ‘criminology of the self’and a ‘crimin-
ology of the other’that react against the criminological ideas and policies associated
with penal-welfarism (Garland:137). The ‘criminology of the self’routinised crime
and allayed disproportionate fears of crime. Such approach framed offenders as
‘normal, rational consumers, just like us’that are responsive and responsible and can
be guided, rewarded and disciplined into transforming their conduct towards more
socially productive ends (Garland 2001: 137). In contrast, the ‘criminology of the
other’was based on the ‘deeply illiberal’assumption that certain groups of ‘others’are
‘dangerous enemies’, that are ‘intrinsically different from the rest of us’and shouldn’t
be subject to welfare and rehabilitation (Garland 2001: 184). Such offenders should be
subject to group-based prevention and exclusion from the community through
‘warfare’and ‘social defence’(Garland 2001: 184). As Garland (2001: 185) argued,
Dagan 601
To continue reading
Request your trial