MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2621976886 · doi:10.1111/hojo.12206

Prison and Social Death J.M. Price. New Brunswick, NJ.: Rutgers University Press (2015) 193pp. $25.95pb ISBN 978‐0‐8135‐6557‐6

2017· article· en· W2621976886 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah H. Drake

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Howard Journal of Crime and Justice · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésImprisonmentPrisonCriminologyGrassrootsSociologyRacismDemocracyCitizen journalismLawPolitical sciencePoliticsGender studies

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Prison and Social Death, Joshua M. Price draws on several years of activism and grassroots participatory research related to the health care of imprisoned people in upstate New York. The book provides rich illustration of the tragic realities of medical treatment and other material conditions of prison life that are drawn from his work with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It is not, however, merely a case study of the work of the NAACP nor a localised account of a few prisons that are poorly managed and under-resourced. Price draws connections between numerous examples of patently inhumane treatment that are commonplace in prisons and the notion of ‘social death’. It is in this connection that Price makes a substantial contribution to understandings of what the use of imprisonment tangibly means – for those directly subjected to it, their families and for societies that demand imprisonment as their favoured form of criminal justice sanction. The book is divided into three parts and ten chapters. In Part One, comprising three chapters, Price sets out the concept of social death, including its origins and constituent elements. In Part Two, through a further three chapters, the book explores the method and history of ‘social death’ in the United States, including the roles of racism and legacies of slavery in establishing the normalisation of state violence through the use of imprisonment. In the final section, Part Three, entitled ‘Abolition Democracy’, three substantive chapters utilise post-imprisonment experiences to examine the social fragmentation, isolation and enduring nature of ‘social death’ that follows the stigmatised ex-prisoner into the community. The final, concluding, chapter takes stock of what has been brought to light about the use and practices of imprisonment in the narratives and experiences catalogued by Price and the work of the NAACP. Whilst the book ends on a somewhat ambivalent and, perhaps, hopeless, tone, it also concludes with some useful considerations on prison abolition – and the commitment to fundamental social change that abolition would require. Price's use and exploration of the concept of ‘social death’ is especially fruitful. He draws on the concept, as defined and explored by Orlando Patterson and his analysis of slavery, and identifies its three aspects: (i) systematic violence; (ii) generalised humiliating treatment; and (iii) ‘natal alienation’. Each of these aspects of social death, Price argues, are intrinsic and fundamental features of modern imprisonment. The term ‘natal alienation’ refers to severance from ancestors, relatives and children. Importantly for Price's work and interest in health care, the concept of natal alienation, as Price states, ‘allows us to explain the implications of incarceration for reproductive health and reproductive justice’ (pp.5–6). Price's considerations of the mistreatment of people in prison from pregnant women, to transgendered people, to men unable to care for their families on the outside are all vividly examined through the lens of natal alienation. Moreover, this concept provides a powerful analytical device for viewing, in stark relief, the experience of not just those imprisoned but also the helplessness and vicarious punishments of their families and communities that result from being unable to protect your loved one from the ravages of the state violence that is imprisonment. As Price notes: ‘According to a common sense view in the United States, implicitly upheld by liberal individualism, prison harms only the incarcerated person’ (p.25); this book illustrates that this view fails to fully grasp the implications and consequences of the use of imprisonment. One of the aspects of the book that is especially refreshing is that it avoids the tendency of much prisons literature to neutrally title a monograph as a book on prisons but then only focus on white men's experiences. This tendency (of which I myself have been guilty) ignores the significance of Dorothy E. Smith's (and other scholars’) ideas about standpoints and institutional ethnography and the implicit expectation that the experience of white men in any given institutional setting is the ‘norm’ against which other standards are upheld. Price's book, however, includes numerous examples and narratives from the lives of black women that provide a depth of insight into the human experience of imprisonment that is rarely achieved in prison writings. It is, therefore, a useful and most welcome addition to both prisons and abolitionist scholarship that speaks not just to the problems of imprisonment in the United States but to the use of this harmful and violent state practice more widely.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,044
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,149

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0440,016

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Howard Journal of Crime and JusticeMême sujetCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisTravaux en français237 207