Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n a recent address to the world's largest criminology association, the American Society of Criminology, David Garland (2013, p. 506) suggested that excessive punishment and use of penal power is inconsistent with liberal democracy.The claim here is that the expansion and strengthening of the penal state and its mechanisms (prisons, jails, police supervision) is somehow illiberal or has been extended in the United States and elsewhere without any "effective liberal counterbalance" (ibid, p. 508).Garland's position assumes that any small reduction or decrease in the use of penal power would be a major win for liberals and for society more generally.He accepts that the operation of prisons and jails is a necessary, if not good, feature of a modern liberal society.Garland's position is not progressive or new.It is as old as liberalism.Most criminological scholarship becomes knowledge for "the inquisitor, the policeman, the state attorney and the prison administrator" (Ruggiero, 2015, p. 10).Such work fails to recognize how it subtly supports the status quo in the penal fi eld.It fails to acknowledge that the exercise of penal power relies on and is simply an extension of state power.And that the problems we fi nd with the operation of prisons and jails -the violence, the arbitrariness, the collateral consequences for captives and staff and their families, the waste of resourcesare evident in the military, in the police and in other state organizations.For almost three decades, the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons (JPP) has been a venue in which those subject to the atrocious authority of the penal state can present arguments against their control and captivity.The journal showcases prisoner writing demonstrating how the inquisitor, the policeman, the state attorney and the prison administrator are engaged in an inhumane, tragic contest of control.These arguments are often substantiated with ethnographic evidence about the pains of imprisonment.The JPP is thus a venue for prisoners and fellow travellers to articulate arguments against the penal state and state organizations generally.The standpoint of prisoners is at the centre of the publication and it will stay that way.Who better to critique the state than those persons who have been most brutalized by it?Criminal justice agencies and criminologists try to make the violence of the state invisible (Chartrand, 2015, p. 12), and part of the purpose of the JPP is to make visible and knowable the violent, corrupt, inhumane
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".