Penal populism

Penal populism is a process whereby the major political parties compete with each other to be "tough on crime". It is generally associated with a public perception that crime is out of control and tends to manifest at general elections when politicians put forward hard-line policies which would remand more offenders into prison prior to sentencing and impose longer sentences. Penal populism generally reflects the disenchantment felt by a distinct segment of society - crime victims and their representatives - who believe they have been left out, or simply forgotten, by justice processes which focus on the offender. It leads to the pursuit of penal policies designed to win votes rather than reduce crime or promote justice.

According to Professor John Pratt, a criminologist at Victoria University, Wellington and international authority on penal populism, the original concept began in the work of Sir Anthony Bottoms a criminologist at Cambridge University. In 1995 Sir Anthony coined the term ‘populist punitiveness’ to describe one of the key influences which he saw at work on contemporary criminal justice and penal systems. It was intended to convey the notion of politicians tapping into and using for their own purposes, what he believed to be the public’s generally punitive stance towards anyone committing crime. The term changed to 'penal populism' when Prof Julian.V. Roberts of Oxford University stated that ‘penal populists allow the electoral advantage of a policy to take precedence over its penal effectiveness.”

In France, this concept was popularized by Denis Salas, judge and university fellow, who defines it as a "sympathetic discourse towards the victims", which leads to a perversion of justice. Salas says that in France, penal populism has led to a plethora of new laws designed to achieve an unrealistic or utopian goal - a society where there is no risk. He says many new criminal statutes have been passed which can be traced to their impact on public opinion, rather than their actual effectiveness at reducing crime.

Underlying calls for a tougher approach on crime is a belief in the theory of deterrence - that the tougher the punishment is for a particular offence, the less likely people are to commit that particular crime. Programs such as boot camps and “scared straight” programs provide 'tough' punishment for teenage offenders - relying on deterrence theory. "Three strikes" policies in New Zealand and the United States are also based on the threat, and on actual, long term incarceration of offenders. Belief in the theory of deterrence also requires belief in the ability of potential offenders to make rational choices. 'Rational choice theory' argues that an individual will only be deterred against a particular course of action if they weigh up the pros and cons and realise that the severe punishment that lies in wait (combined with an assessment of the likelihood of being caught) makes the crime not worth committing.

...
Wikipedia