Which penology for decision making in French prisons?
| Author | Gaëtan Cliquennois |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474513505669 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Punishment & Society
15(5) 468–487
!The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1462474513505669
pun.sagepub.com
Article
Which penology for
decision making in
French prisons?
Gae
¨tan Cliquennois
FNRS, Universite
´Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Abstract
This article argues that while France’s old penology remains well defended due to
professional discretion and individualization of professional judgment in high security
prisons (maisons centrales), a new penal trend akin to an actuarial justice is observed in
detention centres. This trend consists in governing ‘at a distance’ a mixed population of
very different prisoner types. However, a cacophony of voices in the decision-making
process, discretion, professional and unions stakes, face-to-face interactions, abilities of
inmates to negotiate with staff members as well as disconnections and contradictions
between fields of decision making are factors that explain the failure of the new pen-
ology in the most secure prisons. These organizational and professional factors are not
linked to political conditions such as the welfare state or the new management of
poverty as indicated by the authors of the new penology.
Keywords
decision making, French prisons, new penology, privatization
Introduction
The ‘new penology’ is the name given by some criminologists and lawyers to the
new decision-making analysis used in the penal sector, which is essentially con-
cerned with the identification, classification, categorization and management of
delinquents and prisoners on the basis of their membership of a more-or-less
‘at risk’ group (Feeley and Simon, 1992, 1994, 2003). According to the authors
of the new penology, penal institutions would no longer concentrate on individual
prisoners and their rehabilitation (characteristics of the former ‘old’ or
Corresponding author:
Gae
¨tan Cliquennois, FRS-FNRS, Department of Law and Criminology (CRIDEP), Universite
´Catholique de
Louvain, 2 Place Montesquieu, Brussels 1348, Belgium.
Email: gaetan.cliquennois@uclouvain.be
‘correctional’ penology) but instead on efficient population management and eco-
nomic analysis, such as cost–benefit calculations, caused by the decline of the
welfare state, the new management of poverty and the growing use of actuarial,
statistic and aggregate techniques (Feeley and Simon, 2003). For instance, formal
guidelines and statistics would be used to identify and forecast the risks of escape,
violence or recidivism, as well as selectively incapacitating certain offenders
(Heydebrand and Seron, 1990; Pratt, 1995; Walker, 1993) and contributing to a
government-at-a-distance (Garland, 1997, 2001). This incapacitation would be
applied to individuals at high risk of recidivism and would not permit any
re-admission into society (Auerhahn, 2003; Rose, 2000; Simon, 2000). On the
other hand, lower-risk offenders would benefit from parole and conditional release
(Simon, 1993).
However, certain criminologists have directly or indirectly questioned the
assumptions behind the new penology, by examining the multiple and complex
aspects of risk (Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006; Whitty, 2010) and discre-
tion applied in the decision-making process by judges (Gelsthorpe and Padfield,
2003; Hawkins, 1992; Padfield, 2002; Roberts, 2011) and prison officers
(Cheliotis, 2006; Liebling, 2000; Liebling and Price, 2003). Discretionary enforce-
ment of prison rules in individual cases is seen as a condition of a more effective
supervision (Liebling and Price, 2003; Loucks, 1994). This is the reason why
several studies have stated that the new penology downplays the influence of
human interaction, professional values and local impact on penal practices and
may instead cause resistance to risk management implementation (Cheliotis,
2006; Liebling and Price, 2003; Lynch, 1998; Miller, 2001) as well as specific
penal cultures (Melossi, 2001).
Moreover, some scholars have pointed out that these actuarial techniques are
not the sole alternative to the old or correctional penology. According to some
scholars, including Feeley and Simon themselves, the new penology is challenged
by a move towards the culture of punishment characterized by revenge, more rights
for victims and an increased use of incarceration (Bottoms, 1995; Simon, 2000;
Pratt et al., 2005). Besides, the shift towards the new penology and its novelty have
often been overestimated (O’Malley, 2004; Tonry, 2004; Zedner, 2002). Some stu-
dies have indeed stressed that the persistence of the old penology limits the influ-
ence of the new penology in the prison field (Lynch, 1998). Thus, for instance, some
studies on US and Canadian prisons – as well as on the differences between various
security programmes – have revealed both a hybridization of actuarial and correc-
tional approaches (Hannah-Moffat, 2000; Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006)
and sometimes strong resistance to treatment and individualization (Gartner and
Kruttschnitt, 2004; Lucken, 1998; Lynch, 1998).
Despite this criticism, several Belgian and French studies have analysed the
selective incapacitation process as shaped by the new penology (Chantraine,
2010; Mary, 2001). According to these studies, decisions to grant or refuse
parole are increasingly influenced by risk assessment tools. In this context, the
French prisons represent a particularly interesting case, precisely because they
Cliquennois 469
To continue reading
Request your trial