Document Type : Research Article
Author
Department of Criminal Policy and Criminal Justice, Judiciary Research Institute, Iran
Abstract
Punitiveness constitutes one of the most recurrent semantic constructs employed in contemporary criminology over the past two decades, particularly under the influence of emergent paradigms in crime control policy. Although earlier notions such as “penal severity,” “war on crime,” “zero-tolerance policy,” the “crime control model,” “penal instrumentalism,” and “legal violence” may appear conceptually proximate to punitiveness, the construct of punitiveness not only encompasses these notions within its broader semantic ambit, but—inasmuch as it more explicitly signifies the negative orientation of the political system toward crime control—has gained greater traction among critical criminologists. Notwithstanding its frequent usage, scholars in criminal sciences have demonstrated limited inclination to articulate a precise definition of the concept; moreover, existing definitional attempts often reveal a discernible degree of reductionism. The necessity of apprehending the nature and conceptual dimensions of punitiveness becomes particularly salient once it is acknowledged that the principal indicator of the development of state criminal justice systems lies in the repudiation of legal-judicial coerciveness and the concomitant movement toward moderation. Furthermore, given that contemporary crime control policies—through the deployment of punitive strategies—are increasingly traversing a regressive trajectory, the imperative of attaining an accurate conceptual understanding of punitiveness is significantly intensified.
Keywords
- Punitiveness
- Penal Moderation
- Crime Control Governance
- Critical Criminology
- Construct
- Conceptualization
- Indicatorization
Main Subjects
)