Penality, Power, and Polity

• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• Author: Laurie A. Gould,Matthew Pate
• DOI: 10.1177/1057567711431126
• Subject Matter: Articles

Penality, Power, and Polity:

Exploring the Relationship

Between Political Repression

and Corporal Punishment

Laurie A. Gould

1

and Matthew Pate

2

Abstract

Worldwide, the punishment of law violators takes many forms, with some countries relying heavily

on incarceration and others favoring a mix of punishments including incarceration, corporal pun-

ishment, and the death penalty. Determining why a nation chooses to implement one sanction over

another requires an examination of political factors. While some notable research has examined the

correlations between incarceration rates, death penalty retention , and various measures of polit ical

power and repression, the influence of political factors on punishment needs a fuller explication.

Specifically, the use of corporal punishment as a criminal sanction has not been fully examined

within the political repression and punishment literature. To address this gap, authors employ a

cross-national comparative approach to examine how repressive governments and failing regimes

influence the use of corporal punishment by the formal justice system. Findings reveal that more

repressive and failing regimes are more likely to use corporal punishment, compared to freer and

more sustainable nations.

Keywords

comparative crime/justice, corrections, corporal punishment

Introduction

In a recent work, Wacquant (2009) characterizes the prison, not simply as an instrument of the

criminal justice system designed to punish law violators, but instead as a ‘‘core political institution’’

(p. xviii). We concur with this characterization and assert that the intersection of polity and punish-

ment cannot be overstated. Melossi (2008) likewise agrees, ‘‘because one of the main powers of the

State is the power to punish, penality is particularly apt to be used to define the powers and bound-

aries of sovereignty’’ (p. 5). Despite this consensus, the relationship between political power and

1

Department of Political Science, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

2

School of Criminal Justice, University of Albany, Albany, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Laurie A. Gould, Department of Political Science, Georgia Southern University, PO Box 8101, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA

Email: lgould@georgiasouthern.edu

International CriminalJustice Review

21(4) 443-461

ª2011 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1057567711431126

http://icj.sagepub.com

modalities of punishment is not well understood. While notable research has examined the

correlations between incarceration rates, death penalty retention, and various measures of political

power and repression (see e.g., Jacobs & Kleban, 2003; Killias, 1986; Miethe, Lu, & Deibert, 2005;

Neapolitan, 2001; Ruddell & Urbina, 2007), the influence of political factors on punishment needs a

fuller explication (Ruddell & Urbina, 2007). Jacobs and Kleban (2003) caution, ‘‘researchers should

not overlook political arrangements when they attempt to explain punishments’’ (p. 748). Building

upon this perspective, Ruddell and Urbina (2007) note that in states with fragile or repressive

regimes, ‘‘political leaders may use incarceration as a method of controlling protests, opposition

to the regime, or persons who would not ordinarily fit under the definition of a criminal in a nation

with a justice system that had high levels of legitimacy and was politically independent’’ (p. 87).

More recently, Carey (2010) observes countries with more internal unrest are more likely to violate

human rights and in extreme situations of political unrest (e.g., civil war), governments tend to

increase their use of torture and political imprisonment. Broadly, the literature suggests punishment

can, and many times is, used for purposes above and beyond the simple punishment of law violators

(Ruddell & Urbina, 2007). We agree and hold that issues of polity are central to understanding why

nations punish the way they do. In particular, we posit that repressive regimes and failing govern-

ments are more likely to use both incarceration and physical punishments (i.e., capital punishment

and corporal punishment).

Despite the recognition that there is a link between physical punishments and governmental

repression andunrest, the use of corporalpunishment as a sanctionagainst offenders hasnot been exam-

ined within the political repression and punishment literature. To address this gap, we employ a cross-

national comparative approach to examine whether repressive governments and failing regimes are

more inclinedto use corporal punishment,compared to freer andmore stable governments.By examin-

ing corporal punishment, we add a new dimension to the existing literature in this area.

Literature Review

The theoretical explanation for the relationship between polity and punishment can primarily be

found in the work of conflict theorists. The perspective put forth by conflict theorists such as Cham-

bliss and Quinney holds that punishment is a tool of oppression used by those in power as a means to

control dominated populations that challenge existing social arrangements. In other words, incar-

ceration and other sanctionsare used for purposes above and beyond crime control (Smith, 2004). Not

surprisingly, power and conflict are two concepts that are deeply entwined. Dahrendorf (1965) states,

‘‘in every social organization some positions are entrusted with a right to exercise control over other

positions in orderto ensure effective coercion; it means, in other words, that thereis a differential dis-

tribution of power and authority’’(p. 165). Commenting on Dahrendorf’s notionof differential power

and authority, Quinney (2000) observes, ‘‘the differential distribution of power produces conflict

between competing groups, and conflict, in turn, is rooted in the competition for power. Wherever

human beings live together, conflict and a struggle for power will be found’’ (p. 73).

Issues of power are also central to understanding how punishment manifests in society. While

issues of economic control have received attention in the literature (see e.g., Box & Hale, 1986;

Greenberg, 1977; Hale, 1989; Jankovic, 1977), the work of Foucault (1977) helps us move beyond

economic explanations of social control and instead frames the central question as one of cultural

context. In an oft-cited quote, Foucault (1977, p. 82) states punishment reform was prompted largely

by a desire ‘‘not to punish less, but to punish better; to punish with an attenuated severity perhaps,

but in order to punish with more universality and necessity; to insert the power to punish more

deeply into the social body.’’

Extending this line of thought, it is reasonable to assume as Gould and Pate (2010) do, govern-

ments may select particular modalities of punishment to fit their power needs. Gould and Pate (2010)

444 International Criminal Justice Review 21(4)