The Dual Penal State: American Penality between Law and Police (Pt. 3)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is about the collective failure to address the fundamental challenge of legitimating the threat and use of penal violence in modern liberal states. The first part of the book investigated various ways in which criminal law doctrine and scholarship have managed not to meet this continuing struggle to legitimate state action that is so patently illegitimate on its face: the violent violation of the very autonomy of the very persons upon whose autonomy the legitimacy of the state is supposed to rest in a law state, or state under the rule of law. Part 1 focused primarily on German criminal law, and German criminal law science, with regular comparative glances from outside the German penal system. The second part explored an alternative approach to criminal law discourse — among scholars, practitioners, officials, and “lay” persons — that puts the legitimacy challenge of modern penal law front and center. Part 2 was about a way of thinking, and talking, about criminal law: critical analysis of criminal law in a dual penal state. It set out this approach, and illustrated it by applying it to a range of issues in state penality. The point was to frame questions, to lay out tools for answering them, rather than to provide the answers ready-made. The approach in part 2 was systemic; it focused on the shared ideal and history of states that constitute the modern liberal legal-political project. The third, and last, part, of the book will use dual penal state analysis to generate a comparative-historical analysis of American penality. With comparative glimpses at Germany and, to a lesser extent, England. it will distinguish between two responses to the shared challenge of legitimating state penal power in a modern liberal democratic state: (1) the failure to appreciate the legitimatory challenge of modern state penal power in particular (U.S.) and of modern state power in general (England) and (2) the failure to address the legitimatory challenge of modern state penal power as a continuous and comprehensive existential threat to the legitimacy of the state (Germany).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it