The Politics of Imprisonment: How the Democratic Process Shapes the Way America Punishes Offenders (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)

the Attention Devoted To The Unprecedented Levels Of Imprisonment In The United States Obscure An Obvious But Understudied Aspect Of Criminal Justice: There Is No Consistent Punishment Policy Across The U.s. It Is Up To Individual States To Administer Their Criminal Justice Systems, And The Differences Among Them Are Vast. For Example, While Some States Enforce Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Some Even Implementing Harsh And Degrading Practices, Others Rely On Community Sanctions. What Accounts For These Differences? the Politics Of Imprisonment Seeks To Document And Explain Variation In American Penal Sanctioning, Drawing Out The Larger Lessons For America's Overreliance On Imprisonment. Grounding Her Study In A Comparison Of How California, Washington, And New York Each Developed Distinctive Penal Regimes In The Late 1960s And Early 1970s—a Critical Period In The History Of Crime Control Policy And A Time Of Unsettling Social Change—vanessa Barker Concretely Demonstrates That Subtle But Crucial Differences In Political Institutions, Democratic Traditions, And Social Trust Shape The Way American States Punish Offenders. Barker Argues That The Apparent Link Between Public Participation, Punitiveness, And Harsh Justice Is Not Universal But Dependent Upon The Varying Institutional Contexts And Patterns Of Civic Engagement Within The U.s. And Across Liberal Democracies. a Bracing Examination Of The Relationship Between Punishment And Democracy, the Politics Of Imprisonment not Only Suggests That Increased Public Participation In The Political Process Can Support And Sustain Less Coercive Penal Regimes, But Also Warns That It Is Precisely A Lack Of Civic Engagement That May Underpin Mass Incarceration In The United States. The attention devoted to the unprecedented levels of imprisonment in the United States obscure an obvious but understudied aspect of criminal justice: there is no consistent punishment policy across the U.S. It is up to individual states to administer their criminal justice systems, and the differences among them are vast. For example, while some states enforce mandatory minimum sentencing, some even implementing harsh and degrading practices, others rely on community sanctions. What accounts for these differences? The Politics of Imprisonment seeks to document and explain variation in American penal sanctioning, drawing out the larger lessons for America's overreliance on imprisonment. Grounding her study in a comparison of how California, Washington, and New York each developed distinctive penal regimes in the late 1960s and early 1970s--a critical period in the history of crime control policy and a time of unsettling social change--Vanessa Barker concretely demonstrates that subtle but crucial differences in political institutions, democratic traditions, and social trust shape the way American states punish offenders. Barker argues that the apparent link between public participation, punitiveness, and harsh justice is not universal but dependent upon the varying institutional contexts and patterns of civic engagement within the U.S. and across liberal democracies. A bracing examination of the relationship between punishment and democracy, The Politics of Imprisonment not only suggests that increased public participation in the political process can support and sustain less coercive penal regimes, but also warns that it is precisely a lack of civic engagement that may underpin mass incarceration in the United States. "The Politics of Imprisonment seeks to document and explain variation in American penal sanctioning, drawing out the larger lessons for America's overreliance on imprisonment. Grounding her study in a comparison of how California, Washington, and New York each developed distinctive penal regimes in the late 1960s and early 1970s - a critical period in the history of crime control policy and a time of unsettling social change - Vanessa Barker concretely demonstrates that subtle but crucial differences in political institutions, democratic traditions, and social trust shape the way American states punish offenders. Barker argues that the apparent link between public participation, punitiveness, and harsh justice is not universal but dependent upon the varying institutional contexts and patterns of civic engagement within the United States and across liberal democracies." "A bracing examination of the relationship between punishment and democracy, The Politics of Imprisonment not only suggests that increased public participation in the political process can support and sustain less coercive penal regimes, but also warns that it is precisely a lack of civic engagement that may underpin mass incarceration in the United States." --Book Jacket Contents......Page 12 1 Imprisonment and the Democratic Process......Page 16 2 Explaining Penal Regime Variation: Political Structures and Collective Agency......Page 38 3 The Case of California: Neopopulism and Retribution......Page 60 4 Washington State Deliberates: From Fortress Prison to De-Escalation......Page 98 5 New York: Elite Pragmatism and Managerialism......Page 138 6 Democratic Governance, Social Trust, and Penal Order......Page 182 Notes......Page 202 Bibliography......Page 238 B......Page 254 C......Page 255 D......Page 257 H......Page 258 L......Page 259 N......Page 260 P......Page 261 S......Page 263 T......Page 264 W......Page 265 The democratic process & imprisonment Explaining penal regime variation : political structures & collective agency The case of California : neo-populism & retribution Washington State deliberates : from fortress prison to de-escalation New York : elite pragmatism & managerialism Democratic governance, social trust & penal order Appendix A: Selected US imprisonment rates, 1971-2006. 'The Politics of Imprisonment' examines how the democratic process and social trust shape penal sanctioning in the United States. Drawing on a range of archival sources, Barker shows that higher levels of civic engagement tend to support milder punishments whereas lower levels tend to support more coercive criminal justice policies