No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
The papers presented in this last session of the Conference — by Marc Galanter and Richard Abel — tend towards a quasi-sociological perspective, emphasizing the limits of the applicability of the criminal law and its implementation, and drawing attention to alternative normative systems — whether extra-penal or extra-legal.
The papers differ, however, in at least two important respects. The first difference is in tone and orientation. While Galanter is essentially pragmatic, Abel's perspective is radical. On this point it is interesting to observe that Abel's radical criticisms are directed primarily at the inadequacies of the law in the context of the protection of the weaker members of society. Until recently, the radical thrust was generally directed at the overuse of the law against the underprivileged. Recently conducted victim surveys have pointed to the victimization of the poor by offenders rather than as offenders, and this information clearly forms part of the backdrop to Abel's analysis.
1 Galanter, Marc, “Punishment: Civil Style”, in this issue, at p. 759Google Scholar.
2 Abel, Richard, “The Failure of Punishment as Social Control”, in this issue, at p. 740Google Scholar.
3 It may be observed that, in spite of his more pragmatic tone, Galanter, too, takes account of class differentials: he points to the civil law as being the main juridical instrument for controlling the economically powerful, while the criminal law controls the economically marginal.
4 See Abel, R., The Politics of Informal Justice (London, Academic Press, 1982)Google Scholar.
5 Cf. Hagan, J., Modern Criminology (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1987) 192Google Scholar.
6 Ibid., at 159.
7 See supra n. 3.
8 See, e.g., Shapland, J., Willmore, J., & Duff, P., Victims in the Criminal Justice System (Aldershot, Gower, 1985)Google Scholar.
9 Cf. Galanter, who refers to “an increase overall in the amount of official punishment”, supra n. 1, at p. 777.
10 Cf. Sebba, L., “Mitigation of Sentence in Order to Deter?” (1980) 6 Monash L. R. 268–293Google Scholar.
11 See, e.g., “Symposium: Perspectives on Proposals for a Constitutional Amendment Providing Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System” (1987) 34 Wayne L. R.Google Scholar Some retributivist aspects are considered in Murphy, Jeffrie G., “Getting Even: The Role of the Victim”, in Paul, E. F., Miller, F. D. and Paul, J., eds., Crime Culpability and Remedy (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1990) 209Google Scholar.
12 Cf. Sadurski, W., “Social Justice and the Problem of Punishment”, in this issue, at p. 302Google Scholar.