Negotiating penal hybridity: Time–space boundary-work in parole decision making
| Author | Netanel Dagan |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13624806221093088 |
| Published date | 01 May 2023 |
| Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Negotiating penal hybridity:
Time–space boundary-work
in parole decision making
Netanel Dagan
The Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel
Abstract
Drawn on qualitative findings from discretionary chairpersons of parole boards in Israel,
the study aims to theorize parole decision making as time–space boundary-work. Parole
decision-makers were found to act within a hybrid professional environment that
requires them to process distinct, and possibly conflicting, penal values, competencies
and orientations. In order to address their professional tensions, parole decision-makers
constantly negotiate their time and space, and thereby their professional identity. First,
the parole decision-makers perform temporal boundary-work—conceptualizing their
work and identity through qualitative-expansive time. Second, they perform spatial bound-
ary-work—conceptualizing their work and identity through either (a) judicial space or
(b) therapeutic space. This time–space work is used both to span and demarcate their
boundaries in relation to other penal actors and to increase their visibility and legitimacy.
Keywords
boundary-making, boundary-spanning, boundary-work, decision making, parole, professional
identity, time–space work
Introduction
Despite being ‘supremely powerful institutions’(Reitz and Rhine, 20 20: 286), the work
of parole boards is a ‘notoriously understudied’area of criminal justic e that tends to
Corresponding author:
Netanel Dagan, The Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law,The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scopus,
Jerusalem 9190501 Israel.
Email: netanel.dagan@mail.huji.ac.il
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2023, Vol. 27(2) 204–223
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13624806221093088
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
focus on ‘front-door’practices of policing, trial and sentencing (Young, 2020: 938; see
also Rhine et al., 2017; Ruhland, 2020). In recent years there has been growing schol-
arly interest in parole decision making, recognizing that ‘“endings”can be a rich area to
explore’(Maruna, 2011: 5). Criminologists have shown increasing interest in parole
decision making including the work and professional identity of parole supervision offi-
cers (Lynch, 1998; Werth, 2012, 2017). However, how parole boards perceive, experi-
ence and conceptualize their professional identity has remained largely under-theorized,
especially beyond the US context (for recent exceptions see Fitzgerald et al., 2021;
Padfield, 2017). The aim of this article was to address this gap by mobilizing insights
from organizational boundary-work scholarship (Gieryn, 1983; Lamont and Molnár,
2002) in order to theorize the professional identity of parole decision-makers.
This article drewon qualitative findings from interviewswith discretionary chairpersons
of parole boards in Israel.Parole decision-makers were found to actwithin a hybrid profes-
sional environment that requires them to process distinct, and possibly conflicting, penal
values, competencies and orientations. In order to address their professional tensions,
parole decision-makers constantly negotiate their timeand space, and thereby their profes-
sional identity. First, they perform temporal work through conceptualizing time as
qualitative-expansive rather than quantitative-narrow. Second, they perform spatial
boundary-work through conceptualizing their carceral-related space,as either (a) a judicial
space that is characterized by the symbols, rhetoric, authorities, tools and logics of court
and their work as that of a judicial body, holding normative and review powers; or as
(b) a therapeutic spa ce thatis characterized by the corecommunicative, symbolicand phys-
ical manifestations of a therapeuticencounter and they thus perceivetheir work as dialogic,
respectful, emphatic and sensitive. This time–space boundary-work enables parole
decision-makers to either span or demarcate their work with or from other actors, and
thereby increase their visibility and legitimacy within and outside their field.
Theoretical background
The professional status of parole decision-makers
Discretionary parole boards are authorized with the power to release a prisoner before the
end of an original sentence under licence (supervision) conditions (Padfield et al., 2013;
Reitz and Rhine, 2020; Rhine et al., 2017). The purposes, discourses and tools of parole
have changed constantly throughout its history, and between systems, including normal-
izing, individualized and risk-management models (Padfield et al., 2013; Simon, 1993).
These purposes, discourses and tools were reframed over time to fit and preserve the lon-
gevity of whatever constituted current penal philosophy (Shah, 2017; Simon, 1993).
Parole decision-makers come from varied professional backgrounds, including judges,
psychiatrists, psychologists, correctional experts and community members (Fitzgerald
et al., 2021; Padfield, 2017; Page, 2011; Paparozzi and Caplan, 2009). Through their
work, parole decision-makers constantly interact with multiple judicial and correctional
actors that submit their recommendations to the parole board (Paparozzi and Caplan,
2009; Paparozzi and DeMichele, 2008). Such a multifaceted body of information from
Dagan 205
To continue reading
Request your trial