Make a Submission
No. XLV/2 (2023)
Articles

In search of the future of penology. Can we escape from the fatalistic vision of criminal law?

Przyszłość penologii. Czy możliwa jest ucieczka od fatalizmu prawa karnego?

PDF
  • Wojciech Zalewski
Wojciech Zalewski
University of Gdańsk
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7420/AK2023.16

Published 2023-12-31

Keywords

  • penology,
  • criminology,
  • contrology,
  • penal law,
  • criminal law

How to Cite

Zalewski, W. (2023). In search of the future of penology. Can we escape from the fatalistic vision of criminal law? Przyszłość penologii. Czy możliwa jest ucieczka od fatalizmu prawa karnego?. Archives of Criminology, (XLV/2), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.7420/AK2023.16
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Penology, like the criminal law to which it essentially refers, is seen as a science in crisis. This crisis is related to the unclear conceptual and problematic scope to which it is intended to refer. In this text, the author presents a proposal for the broadest deployment of penology and juxtaposes it with contrology, a science that also includes methods of influence and control over human behaviour other than criminal. The author notes that it is impossible to predict the development of penology without reference to three factors that determine the development of almost all modern fields of knowledge: technological progress, medicalisation and economisation. It seems a sad anachronism to think about punishment as the basic response to crime in future. Instead, we should be aiming to develop methods to help people avoid situations in which their behaviour must be corrected through suffering.

PDF

References

  1. Angwin J. Larson J., Mattu S., and Kirchner L. (2016). Machine Bias - There's Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And it's Biased against Blacks, Propublica.org. Available online: www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing [18.12.2023].
  2. Babinet G. (2018). The End of Nation States? Part 1: Technology-Induced Sovereignty Transfers, Institutmontaigne.org. Available online: https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/end-nation-states-part-1-technology-induced-sovereignty-transfers [18.12.2023].
  3. Beaver K.M. and Walsh A. (eds.) (2011). The Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime. London, New York: Routledge.
  4. Bock T., Linner T., and Ikeda W. (2011). ʻExoskeleton and humanoid robotic technology in construction and built environment.ʼ In R. Zaier (ed.) The Future of Humanoid Robots: Research and Applications. Rijeka: InTech, pp. 111–146. https://doi.org/10.5772/27694
  5. Bogusz M. and Zalewski W. (eds.) (2021). “Administrativization” of Criminal Law or “Criminalization” of Administrative Law. Gdańsk: Gdańsk University Publishing.
  6. Brennan T. and Dieterich W. (2009). ʻEvaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment System.ʼ Criminal Justice and Behavior 36(1), pp. 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808326545
  7. Cullen F.T. (2013). ʻRehabilitation: Beyond nothing works.ʼ Crime and Justice 42(1), pp. 299–376. https://doi.org/10.1086/670395
  8. Dore-Horgan E. (2023). ʻDo criminal offenders have a right to neurorehabilitation?.ʼ Criminal Law and Philosophy 17(2), pp. 429–451.
  9. Douglas T. and Birks D. (2018). Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Forsberg L. (2018). ʻCrime-preventing neurointerventions and the law: Learning from anti-libidinal interventions.ʼ In D. Birks and T. Douglas (eds.) Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 44–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198758617.003.0003
  11. Fukuyama F. (2004). Koniec człowieka. Konsekwencje rewolucji biotechnologicznej [The End of man. Consequences of the biotechnological revolution]. Warszawa: Znak.
  12. Goodman P., Page J., and Phelps M. (2017). Breaking the Pendulum. The Long Struggle over Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Greco L. (2021). ʻThe method of (German) criminal law dogmatics.ʼ In S. Matsuzawa and K. Nuotio (ed.) Methodology of Criminal Law Theory: Art, Politics or Science?, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 129–140.
  14. Grinberg A. (2019). Is Mexico a Failing State?, Realcleardefense.com. Available online: https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/02/07/is_mexico_a_failing_state_114170.html [18.12.2023].
  15. Hoffmann J.F. and Stuntz W.J. (2021). Defininig Crimes. Aspen Publishing.
  16. Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 [JRaCA] (n.d.), Legislation-gov-uk. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/35/contents [18.12.2023].
  17. Kleinberg J., Lakkaraju H., Leskovec J., Ludwig J., and Mullainathan S. (2018). ʻHuman decisions and machine predictions.ʼ The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(1), pp. 237–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
  18. Lahti R. (2017). ʻTowards a more efficient, fair and humane criminal justice system. Developments of criminal policy and criminal sanctions during the last 50 years in Finland.ʼ Cogent Social Sciences 3(1), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1303910
  19. Lahti R. (2021). ʻLife imprisonment and other long-term sentences in the Finnish criminal justice system: Fluctuations in penal policy.ʼ In K. Ghanayim and Y. Shany (eds.) The Quest for Core Values in the Application of Legal Norms. Essays in Honor of Mordechai Kremnitzer. Cham: Springer, pp. 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78953-4_12
  20. Lösel F. (2020). ʻEntwicklungspfade der Straftäterbehandlung: skizzierte Wege und Evaluation der Zielerreichungʼ [Development paths of offender treatment: Outlined paths and evaluation of target achievement]. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie 14, pp. 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-020-00582-4
  21. Mamak K. (2021). Filozofia karania na nowo [Philosophy of Punishment anew]. Kraków: Krakowski Instytut Prawa Karnego Fundacja.
  22. Nie żyje 8-letni Kamil z Częstochowy. Ziobro: Niestety w Polsce mamy tylko dożywocie [8-year-old Kamil from Czestochowa is dead. Ziobro: Unfortunately in Poland we only have life imprisonment] (2023), Rp.pl. Available online: https://www.rp.pl/przestepczosc/art38441411-nie-zyje-8-letni-kamil-z-czestochowy-ziobro-niestety-w-polsce-mamy-tylko-dozywocie [18.12.2023].
  23. Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o postępowaniu wobec osób z zaburzeniami psychicznymi stwarzających zagrożenie życia, zdrowia lub wolności seksualnej innych osób. Dz.U. z 2022 r., poz. 1689 [Announcement of the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of July 7, 2022 on the announcement of the unified text of the law on treatment of persons with mental disorders posing a threat to the life, health or sexual freedom of others. Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1689].
  24. Ofterdinger H. (2020). ʻStrafzumessung durch Algorithmen?ʼ [Sentencing through algorithms]. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtdogmatik 9, pp. 404–410.
  25. OʼNeill Hayes T. (2020). The Economic Costs of the U.S. Criminal Justice System, Americanactionforum.org. Available online: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-economic-costs-of-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system [18.12.2023].
  26. Perricone A., Baskin-Sommers A., and Ahn W-k. (2022). ʻThe effect of neuroscientific evidence on sentencing depends on how one conceives of reasons for incarceration.ʼ PLoS ONE 17(11), pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276237
  27. Porównanie kosztów: więzienie a odbycie kary w domu [SDE] [Cost comparison: Prison vs. serving sentence at home [SDE]] (2023), Samorzad.infor.pl. Available online: https://samorzad.infor.pl/sektor/zadania/bezpieczenstwo/5649743,system-dozoru-elektronicznego-2023-r-sde.html [18.12.2023].
  28. Pratt J. and Miao M. (2019). ʻThe end of penal populism, the rise of populist politics.ʼ Archives of Criminology 41(2), pp. 15–40. https://doi.org/10.7420/AK2019M
  29. Rosmarin A. and Eastwood N. (2012). A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalization Policies in Practice across the Globe, Opensocietyfoundations.org. Available online: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/quiet-revolution-drug-decriminalisation-policies-practice-across-globe [18.12.2023].
  30. Shi Ch., Sourdin T., and Li B. (2021). ʻThe smart court – a new pathway to justice in China?.ʼ International Journal for Court Administration 12(1). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.36
  31. Silverman E. (2023). ʻAI and the Administration of Justice in the United States of America: Predictive Policing and Predictive Justice.ʼ e-Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal A–08, pp. 5–77. Available online: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3522687/component/file_3522688/content
  32. Snacken S. and Van Zyl Smit D. (2017). ʻDistinctive features of European penology and penal policy – making.ʼ In T. Deams, D. van Zyl Smit, and S. Snacken (eds.) European Penology? Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 3–6.
  33. Stuart T., Buchanan J., and Ayres T. (2016). ʻProhibition, privilege and the drug apartheid: The Failure of drug policy reform to address the underlying fallacies of drug prohibition.ʼ Criminology & Criminal Justice 16(4), pp. 452–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816633274
  34. Stuntz W.J. (2011). The Collapse of American Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  35. Ugwudike P., Raynor P., and Anniston J. (2018). Evidence-Based Skills in Criminal Justice: International Research on Supporting Rehabilitation and Desistance. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
  36. Ustawa z dnia 22 listopada 2013 r. o postępowaniu wobec osób z zaburzeniami psychicznymi stwarzających zagrożenie życia, zdrowia lub wolności seksualnej innych osób. Dz.U. z 2014 r., poz. 24 [The Law of November 22, 2013 on the treatment of persons with mental disorders who pose a threat to the life, health or sexual freedom of others. Journal of Laws of 2014, pos. 24].
  37. Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw. Dz.U. z 2022 r., poz. 2600 [The Law of July 7, 2022 on amending the Law – Criminal Code and some other laws. Journal of Laws of 2022, item 2600].
  38. Utrat-Milecki J. (2022). Penologia ogólna. Perspektywa integralnokulturowa [General penology. Integral-cultural perspective]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. https://doi.org/10.31338/uw.9788323555728
  39. Widacki J. (ed.) (2017). Populizm penalny [Penal populism]. Kraków: Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego.
  40. Widłak T. (2016). Fuller. Sopot: Arche.
  41. Wróblewski B. (1926). Penologia. Socjologia kar [Penology. Sociology of punishment]. Vol. I. Vilnius: Skład główny w Księgarni Kazimierza Rutskiego.
  42. Wysocki M. (2022). Ile płacimy za utrzymanie więźniów? [How much do we pay for prisonersʼ upkeep?], Portal.faktura.pl. Available online: https://portal.faktura.pl/player/ile-placimy-za-utrzymanie-wiezniow/ [18.12.2023].
  43. Zalewski W. (2009). ʻPopulizm penalny – próba zdefiniowania zjawiskaʼ [Penal populism – an attempt to define the phenomenon]. In Z. Sienkiewicz, R. Kokot (eds.) Populizm penalny i jego przejawy w Polsce. Materiały z Ogólnopolskiego Zjazdu Katedr Prawa Karnego [Penal Populism and its Manifestations in Poland]. Wrocław: Kolonia Limited, pp. 13–32.
  44. Zalewski W. (2014). ʻTherapeutic and legislative approaches to sex offenders in Poland.ʼ Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform 97(1), pp. 48–56.
  45. Zalewski W. (2018a). ʻDetencja „terapeutyczna” – wątpliwości konstytucyjne i polityczno-kryminalne w kontekście ustawy o „bestiach” [“Therapeutic” detention. Constitutional and political-criminal doubts in the context of the law on “beasts”]. Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze 40, pp. 371–388.
  46. Zalewski W. (2018b). ʻBiologiczne i biosocjologiczne uwarunkowania przestępczościʼ [Biological and bio- sociological determinants of crime]. In E. Drzazga, M. Grzyb (eds.) Nowe kierunki w kryminologii [New directions in criminology]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, pp. 27–46.
  47. Zalewski W. (2021). ʻContrology and criminal law: Genesis, current state, perspectives.ʼ Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 30(2), pp. 381–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.2.381-397
  48. Zalewski W. (2023a). “Orzecznictwo w systemie prawa. Pkt 3. Wokanda krajowa. Sądy Karne” [Jurisprudence in the legal system. Section 3. National vocanda. Criminal Courts]. In Z. Brodecki (ed.) Przedwiośnie ery sztucznej inteligencji. Prawo w interakcji z technologią i zarządzaniem [The dawn of the era of artificial intelligence. Law in interaction with technology and management]. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego (In print).
  49. Zalewski W. (2023b). ʻKształt dyrektyw wymiaru kary miarą zaufania do sądówʼ [The shape of the directives of punishment as a measure of confidence in the courts]. In J. Bojarski, N. Daśko, J. Lachowski, T. Oczkowski, A. Ziółkowska (eds.) Współczesne oblicze prawa karnego, prawa wykroczeń, kryminologii i polityki kryminalnej: Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesor Violetcie Konarskiej-Wrzosek [Contemporary face of criminal law, misdemeanor law, criminology and criminal policy: A memorial book offered to Professor Violetta Konarska-Wrzosek]. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, s. 963–977.