From rehabilitation to penal communication: The role of furlough and visitation within a retributivist framework
| Published date | 01 July 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474520953676 |
| Date | 01 July 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
From rehabilitation to
penal communication:
The role of furlough
and visitation within a
retributivist framework
William Bu
¨low
Stockholm University, Sweden
Netanel Dagan
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Abstract
Retributivism is one of the most prevalent theories in contemporary penal theory.
However, despite its popularity it is frequently argued that too little attention has
been paid to the implications of retributivism for prison management and prison life,
including prison visits and furlough. More so, it has been questioned both whether the
various forms of retributivism found in the philosophical literature on criminal punish-
ment have anything to say about what prison life ought to be like and whether they are
able to criticize deeply contested rules and practices, such as those that deny inmates
contact with family-members for the sake of prison discipline. In this paper, we argue
that prison visits and furlough have a crucial role in a prison system based on retribu-
tivist principles. In particular, we argue that the communicative theory of punishment
has important theoretical resources for proving a strong and compelling rationale for
both furlough and visitation on retributivist grounds. Besides exploring this rationale,
we also discuss the practical implications of this view for the penal policy.
Corresponding author:
William Bu¨low, Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Universitetsvaegen 10 D, Floor 7,
Stockholm 106 91, Sweden.
Email: william.bulow@philosophy.su.se
Punishment & Society
2021, Vol. 23(3) 376–393
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474520953676
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Keywords
communicative theory of punishment, furloughs, penal theory, prison visits,
retributivism
Introduction
There is a voluminous scholarship on retributivism and its implications for legal
decision-making and criminal sentencing. Penal philosophers and criminologists
have all contributed to the growing body of literature on retributivism, elaborating
on its main concepts, including penal censure, crime severity and proportionality
(du Bois-Pedain and Bottoms, 2019; Duff, 2001; Duus-Otterstr€
om, 2013; Tonry,
2011; von Hirsch, 1976, 2017). Yet, despite its popularity among penal theorists
and policy-makers, it is frequently argued that too little attention has been paid to
the implications of retributivism for prison management (as well as other post-
sentencing practices, like parole) (Dagan and Roberts, 2019; Hayes, 2018; Kerr,
2019; Lippke, 2007; O’Hear, 2011). This includes prisoners’ opportunities for visits
and furlough. Despite being an attraction for extensive empirical scholarship (see
e.g., Cheliotis, 2008; Cochran and Mears, 2013; Duwe and Clark, 2013; Mitchell
et al., 2016), few penal theorists have discussed what role, if any, prison furlough
and visitation has within a retributivist framework (one notable exception is
Lippke, 2007).
Humanitarian reasons aside, the most frequently evoked justification of both
prison furlough and visitation is that of offender rehabilitation (Boudin et al.,
2013; van Zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009). Even if they are very different, prison
furlough and visitation programs are mechanisms that enable inmates to maintain
important social bonds with people on “the outside” during their imprisonment,
which, in turn, can improve inmate behavior and reduce recidivism. Empirical
studies suggest that visitation programs might decrease the risk of recidivism as
well as the prevalence of prison misconduct (Cochran and Mears, 2013; Duwe and
Clark, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2016) and have found that furlough has a positive
impact on offender reintegration (Cheliotis, 2008). In general, allowing prisoners
to retain meaningful contact with the outside world might help mitigate many of
the harmful effects associated with prison life and social isolation (Cochran and
Mears, 2013).
Despite these positive effects, it is not clear whether either prison furlough or
visitation programs are compatible with retributivism. To the contrary, critics have
questioned whether retributivism has anything at all to say about the type of rules
and practices that deny inmates contact with family-members (for example, for the
sake of prison discipline). For instance, Whitman (2003) argues that instead of
criticizing such practices, the retributivist’s language of blame is (and indeed has
been) easily exploited in order to support deeply contested and problematic penal
policies of this sort. More recently, Kerr (2019) argues that although contemporary
Bu
¨low and Dagan 377
To continue reading
Request your trial