Cambridge Studies in Law and Society aims to publish the best scholarly work on legal discourse and practice in its social and institutional contexts, combining theoretical insights and empirical research. 《剑桥法律与社会研究》旨在结合理论见解和实证研究，发表有关社会和制度背景下的法律话语和实践的最佳学术著作。
The fields that it covers are: studies of law in action; the sociology of law; the anthropology of law; cultural studies of law, including the role of legal discourses in social formations; law and economics; law and politics; and studies of governance. The books consider all forms of legal discourse across societies, rather than being limited to lawyers’ discourses alone. 本书涵盖的领域包括：法律实践研究；法律社会学；法律人类学；法律文化研究（包括法律话语在社会形态中的作用）；法律与经济学；法律与政治；以及治理研究。本书探讨了不同社会中各种形式的法律话语，而非仅限于律师的话语。
The series editors come from a range of disciplines: academic law; socio-legal studies; sociology; and anthropology. All have been actively involved in teaching and writing about law in context. 本丛书的编辑来自多个学科领域：法学、社会法律研究、社会学和人类学。他们都积极参与法律相关的教学和写作。
Series editors 系列编辑
Chris Arup 克里斯·阿鲁普
Monash University, Victoria 莫纳什大学维多利亚分校
Martin Chanock 马丁·查诺克
La Trobe University, Melbourne 墨尔本拉筹伯大学
Sally Engle Merry 莎莉·恩格尔·梅里
New York University 纽约大学
Susan Silbey 苏珊·西尔贝
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 麻省理工学院
A list of books in the series can be found at the back of this book. 该系列书籍的列表可以在本书的后面找到。
But it would make the process less pronounced, possibly much less • pronounced. 但它会使这一进程变得不那么明显，甚至可能非常不明显。
We are better at analysing the reasons why unwanted conditions flourish than how they are to be tamed. We should begin thinking about how to tame them. 我们更擅长分析不良状况滋生的原因，而不是如何控制它们。我们应该开始思考如何控制它们。
In doing so, Why Prison? will be a very important and useful book. 从这个意义上来说，《为什么要入狱？》将会是一本非常重要且有用的书。
WHY PRISON? POSING THE QUESTION 为什么要入狱？提出问题
David Scott 大卫·斯科特
The question ‘why prison?’ has never been more pertinent or compelling than it is today. Rates of penal incarceration in many countries around the world have reached record levels, and the combined world prison population recently surpassed 10 million. ^(1){ }^{1} When such enormous figures are presented to us it can be difficult to conceptualise what the data actually mean, but if all the people imprisoned in just three nations - the USA, China and Russia - were to stand next to each other, the resulting line would stretch across the surface of the planet. Notwithstanding a few notable exceptions, the global data are clear and decisive: penal incarceration has risen and continues to rise at an alarmingly fast pace (Walmsley, 2012). For Dario Melossi (2011: 50), global penal excess at the beginning of the twenty-first century is tantamount to a ‘great internment’. Such phraseology immediately brings to mind a possible connection between the current penal incarceration binge and the emergence of the Great Confinement in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939/2003; Foucault, 1967). It also begs parallels with the emergence in the eighteenth century of a centralised bureaucratic state with the mandate to manage rising economic inequality and manifestations of class struggle. The mission of the new sites of state detention was unequivocal: to survey, classify, regulate and control unwanted and unwelcome populations “为何要监狱？”这个问题从未像今天这样迫切和紧迫。世界许多国家的监禁率都达到了创纪录的水平，全球监狱总人数最近超过了 1000 万。 ^(1){ }^{1} 如此庞大的数字摆在我们面前，我们很难理解这些数据的实际含义。但如果把美国、中国和俄罗斯这三个国家所有在押人员排成一条长线，这条线就能覆盖整个地球。除了少数显著的例外，全球数据清晰而有力：监禁率一直在上升，并且还在以惊人的速度持续上升（Walmsley，2012）。对达里奥·梅洛西（Dario Melossi）（2011：50）来说，21 世纪初全球监狱的过度使用无异于一场“大规模监禁”。这样的措辞立刻让人联想到，当前的刑事监禁狂潮与 16 世纪末 17 世纪初“大禁闭”（Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939/2003; Foucault, 1967）之间可能存在某种联系。它也与 18 世纪出现的中央集权官僚国家相呼应，后者肩负着管理日益加剧的经济不平等和阶级斗争表现的使命。新的国家拘留场所的使命非常明确：对不受欢迎和不受欢迎的人群进行调查、分类、监管和控制。 ^(1){ }^{1} Due to categorisation and recording problems, even this figure is likely to be an underestimate. For example, it is estimated that there are more than 650,000 people in detention centres in China. If these data are included, the overall total for China is 2.3 million and the world total 10.75 million (Walmsley, 2012: 1). ^(1){ }^{1} 由于分类和记录问题，即使是这个数字也可能被低估。例如，据估计，中国拘留中心关押着超过 65 万人。如果将这些数据也算上，中国的总人数为 230 万，全球总人数为 1075 万（Walmsley，2012：1）。
(Rothman, 1971; Foucault, 1977; Ignatieff, 1978; Melossi and Pavarini, 1981; S. Cohen, 1985; Scull, 1993). As Thomas Mathiesen (1990: 14) maintained some twenty or more years ago, the rapid and spectacular growth of penal incarceration since the early 1970s may indicate a new third stage in the development of imprisonment, this time in response to a perceived ‘need for discipline in given segments and groups of the population’ (emphasis in original). Perhaps, then, we should not be surprised that prisons everywhere are bursting at the seams with the poor, marginalised and socially deprived. （Rothman，1971；Foucault，1977；Ignatieff，1978；Melossi 和 Pavarini，1981；S. Cohen，1985；Scull，1993）。正如托马斯·马蒂森（Thomas Mathiesen，1990：14）二十多年前所言，自 20 世纪 70 年代初以来，监禁率的迅速增长可能预示着监禁制度发展的第三个新阶段，这一次是为了回应人们所认为的“特定人群和群体的纪律需求”（着重号为原文）。因此，我们或许不应该对世界各地的监狱都挤满了穷人、边缘化者和社会弱势群体感到惊讶。
Asking the question ‘why prison?’ connects contemporary critical analysis of penal incarceration with an enquiry that has been the attention of some of the greatest thinkers on the ‘confinement project’ in the past and provides the central premise of this edited collection. This introductory chapter is divided into three parts. The section directly below explores data from twelve countries to update and evidence Thomas Mathiesen’s (1990) argument regarding the emergence of a third stage of penal incarceration. The discussion then moves on to critically evaluate five of the main ‘common sense’ justifications proposed in defence of the prison. Finding such justifications unconvincing, it is maintained that the global explosion in the use of imprisonment in the last four decades has more to do with its role in the control of certain identifiable groups of people rather than as a rational response to ‘crime’. The introduction closes with a brief summary of the following fourteen chapters by some of the leading contemporary writers on imprisonment. “为何监狱？”这一问题将当代对监禁的批判性分析与过去一些最伟大的“监禁计划”思想家关注的课题联系起来，并构成了本书的核心前提。本导言章节分为三个部分。下一节探讨了来自 12 个国家的数据，以更新和佐证托马斯·马蒂森（Thomas Mathiesen，1990）关于监禁第三阶段出现的论点。随后，讨论将批判性地评估五种为监狱辩护的主要“常识性”辩护。由于这些辩护难以令人信服，我们认为过去四十年来全球监禁使用激增与其说是对“犯罪”的理性回应，不如说是其在控制某些可识别人群方面发挥的作用。导言最后简要概述了当代一些杰出监禁作家撰写的十四章。
GLOBAL HYPER-INCARCERATION 全球超高监禁率
Even the most cursory glance at Table 1.1, which details penal incarceration rates in twelve countries since 1970, can leave no doubt about current trends in the Western world. In ten of the twelve nations, which are either predominantly English speaking or located in Europe, the prisoner rate has increased in the last forty years. In one country, Germany, the prisoner rate rose in the late twentieth century but by 2010 had returned to virtually the same level as 1970. Only in Finland can we find evidence of a clear downward trend. This deviant case has attracted considerable academic attention (Lappi-Seppala, 2012), and it is worth noting that whilst in 1970 Finland had a prisoner rate second only to the USA, by 2010 it had by far the lowest recorded rate of the twelve selected countries. Let us take this analysis of prisoner rates further by first considering in some depth the USA, and then moving 表 1.1 详细列出了自 1970 年以来 12 个国家的监禁率，即使粗略浏览一下，也能毫不怀疑地看出西方世界的当前趋势。在这 12 个国家中，有 10 个国家（它们要么以英语为主，要么位于欧洲）的囚犯率在过去 40 年里有所上升。德国的囚犯率在 20 世纪末有所上升，但到 2010 年已基本回落至 1970 年的水平。只有在芬兰，我们才能找到明显下降趋势的证据。这一异常案例引起了学术界的广泛关注（Lappi-Seppala，2012），值得注意的是，虽然 1970 年芬兰的囚犯率仅次于美国，但到 2010 年，它在 12 个国家中却是迄今为止最低的。让我们进一步分析囚犯率，首先深入考察美国，然后
TABLE 1.1 Selected prisoner rates (per 100,000) in twelve countries (1970-2010) 表 1.1 12 个国家的囚犯比例（每 100,000 人）（1970-2010 年）
(Source: Lappi-Seppala, 2012; Walmsley, 2012) （来源：Lappi-Seppala，2012；Walmsley，2012）
on to reflect upon the situation in four other Anglophone countries before concluding this overview with an account of the seven other selected countries in Europe, paying particular attention to the recently debated notion of ‘Nordic exceptionalism’. 接下来，我们将反思其他四个英语国家的情况，最后概述欧洲其他七个选定的国家，并特别关注最近争论的“北欧例外论”概念。
The USA today stands at the top of the world penal incarceration rate. It was not always so. For most of the twentieth century until the mid 1970s, the USA had a relatively stable rate of penal incarceration, remaining well below 200 per 100,000 of the national population. ^(2){ }^{2} In 1970 the average daily population (ADP) of those confined in prison or jail was 250,000,^(3)250,000,^{3} yet the rise since this time has been quite staggering. By the early 1980s the USA prisoner ADP had doubled to more than 500,000 prisoners, and by February 2000 this number had surpassed 2 million (Lacey, 2011). In 2010 the USA imprisoned 2.3 million people at a rate of 748 per 100,000 and 7.3 million people - or 1 in 33 adults were either in prison, on parole or on probation. Prisoner rates in the USA are now five times greater than those of Western-European and English-speaking countries. ^(4){ }^{4} 如今，美国的监禁率高居世界首位。但情况并非一直如此。在 20 世纪的大部分时间里，直到 20 世纪 70 年代中期，美国的监禁率相对稳定，远低于每 10 万人口 200 人的水平。 ^(2){ }^{2} 1970 年，美国监狱或看守所的平均每日监禁人数（ADP）为 250,000,^(3)250,000,^{3} ，但自那时以来的增长速度相当惊人。到 20 世纪 80 年代初，美国囚犯 ADP 翻了一番，超过 50 万人，到 2000 年 2 月，这一数字已超过 200 万人（Lacey，2011 年）。 2010 年，美国监禁了 230 万人，平均每 10 万人中有 748 人入狱。730 万人——或者说，每 33 个成年人中就有 1 人处于监禁、假释或缓刑状态。美国的囚犯率如今是西欧和英语国家的五倍。 ^(4){ }^{4}
Whilst politicians in the USA have recently raised concerns about the financial cost of imprisonment (the USA spent $47\$ 47 billion on prisons in 2008), penologists have primarily focused on the social dimensions of penal incarceration. The phenomenal rise in the ^(5){ }^{5} US prison population has been described as ‘mass imprisonment’ for much of the last decade (Garland, 2001d). Recently, however, Loïc Wacquant (2010a) has argued that this term is inappropriate because penal excess has not been experienced by the ‘mass’ of the populace, but almost exclusively by poor black, Latino and Hispanic Americans. US prison data support his assertion. Whilst more than 1 in 100 American adults are in prison, the figure is 1 in 50 for Hispanic men and 1 in 20 for black men. The overall penal incarceration rate for men in the USA is 943 per 100,000 . When analysed via categorisations of ‘race’, the rate falls to 487 for white men but rises to 1,261 for Hispanic and Latino men and 3,042 for black men (Lacey, 2011). African Americans make up 13 per cent of the general population but 60 per cent of the US prison population, and are eight times more likely to be incarcerated than the white population (Downes, 2012). The centrality of class should not be forgotten here. Undoubtedly middle-class black populations have benefited from social mobility. By some estimates the probability of middle-class African Americans going to prison dropped by 50 per cent in the last twenty years (Wacquant, 2001; 2010a). This being said, more African Americans are today under correctional supervision than were enslaved during the antebellum period (Alexander, 2011). Loïc Wacquant (2010a) refers to this phenomenon as ‘hyper-incarceration’, indicating the existence of ‘penal excess’ (J. Pratt, 2008b) without obfuscating its real targèt: poor and black or minority ethnic (BME) populations. The contention of this chapter is that such ‘hyper-incarceration’ also has a global dimension (A. Y. Davis, 2012). 尽管美国政界人士最近对监禁的经济成本表示担忧（美国 2008 年在监狱上花费了 $47\$ 47 亿美元），但刑罚学家主要关注的是监禁的社会层面。在过去十年的大部分时间里，美国监狱人口的显著增长被描述为“大规模监禁”（Garland，2001d）。然而，最近 Loïc Wacquant（2010a）认为这一说法并不恰当，因为过度刑罚并没有发生在“大众”身上，而几乎只有贫穷的黑人、拉丁裔和西班牙裔美国人经历了这种刑罚。美国监狱数据支持他的观点。虽然每 100 个美国成年人中就有超过 1 人入狱，但西班牙裔男性的比例为 1/50，黑人男性的比例为 1/20。美国男性的总体监禁率为每 100,000 人中有 943 人入狱。按“种族”分类进行分析时，白人男性的入狱率降至 487，而西班牙裔和拉丁裔男性则升至 1,261，黑人男性则升至 3,042（Lacey，2011）。非裔美国人占美国总人口的 13%，但占美国监狱人口的 60%，入狱可能性是白人的八倍（Downes，2012）。这里不应忘记阶级的核心地位。毫无疑问，中产阶级黑人群体受益于社会流动性。据估计，中产阶级非裔美国人入狱的可能性在过去二十年中下降了 50%（Wacquant，2001；2010a）。话虽如此，如今接受管教的非裔美国人比南北战争前被奴役的人数还要多（Alexander，2011）。 Loïc Wacquant (2010a) 将这种现象称为“过度监禁”，表明存在“刑罚过度”的情况 (J. Pratt, 2008b)，但并未掩盖其真正目标：贫困人口、黑人或少数族裔 (BME) 群体。本章的论点是，这种“超量监禁”也具有全球性（AY Davis, 2012）。
In other Anglophone countries we can also find evidence of escalating prisoner populations and an intensification in the discipline and control of BME populations from the poorest segments of the working class. In New Zealand in the 1960s, the prisoner ADP was around 1,700, and although it remained relatively stable until the mid 1980s, from this point the prisoner rate rose from 80 per 100,000 to 126 per 100,000 in 1996 (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006). It increased still further to 199 per 100,000 in 2010 and in March 2011 the prisoner ADP peaked at 8,844. Like the USA, when prisoner rates are examined through the lens of ‘race’, disturbing patterns emerge. Maori men constitute 15 per cent of the national population but account for 51 per cent of the male prisoner 在其他英语国家，我们也能发现囚犯人数不断增加的证据，以及对来自最贫困工人阶级的少数族裔群体（BME）的管教和控制不断加强。20 世纪 60 年代的新西兰，囚犯平均每 10 万人（ADP）约为 1700 人，尽管这一数字在 20 世纪 80 年代中期保持相对稳定，但从那时起，囚犯比例从每 10 万人 80 人上升到 1996 年的每 10 万人 126 人（Cavadino 和 Dignan，2006）。2010 年，这一数字进一步上升至每 10 万人 199 人，2011 年 3 月，囚犯平均每 10 万人（ADP）达到峰值 8844 人。与美国一样，当以“种族”的视角审视囚犯比例时，就会发现令人不安的模式。毛利男性占全国人口的 15%，但却占男性囚犯的 51%。
population. They are eight times more likely to be imprisoned than nonMaori men by New Zealand criminal processes. In Australia there has been a steady rise in prisoner population since the 1970s, and by March 2012 it had a prisoner rate of 133 per 100,000 and a prisoner ADP of 29,226. Two of the most striking aspects of Australian prison populations are the divergences between different territories and the overpenalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In March 2012 the Northern Territory had a prisoner rate of 821 per 100,000, which, if it was nation in its own right, would be the number one penal incarcerator in the world. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represent just 2 per cent of the national population but 27 per cent of the prisoner population, and have an imprisonment rate of 2,247 per 100,000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). 人口。在新西兰刑事诉讼中，她们入狱的可能性是非毛利男性的八倍。自 1970 年代以来，澳大利亚的囚犯人数一直在稳步上升，到 2012 年 3 月，其囚犯率为每 100,000 人中有 133 人入狱，平均每 100,000 人中囚犯人数为 29,226 人。澳大利亚监狱人口最引人注目的两个方面是不同地区之间的差异以及对原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民的过度惩罚。2012 年 3 月，北领地的囚犯率为每 100,000 人中有 821 人入狱，如果将其作为一个国家，那么它将是世界上监禁人数最多的国家。原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民仅占全国人口的 2%，但却占囚犯人口的 27%，每 100,000 人中有 2,247 人入狱（澳大利亚统计局，2012 年）。
England and Wales has been on a clear expansionist penal trajectory since at least the 1970s. ^(5){ }^{5} Although there was a small reversal in this trend from 1989 to 1992 when the prison population fell from 50,000 to 41,000, since 1993 the prisoner ADP has increased year-on-year by an average of 3.7 per cent for nearly twenty years (Berman, 2012). The result is a more than doubling of the ADP of prisoners, which surpassed 80,000 for the first time in December 2006 and reached a record high of 88,179 prisoners on 2 December 2011. People categorised as either ‘black’ or ‘black British’ make up 2.7 per cent of the national population but 13.4 per cent of the prisoner population. ‘African Caribbean’ women make up 1 per cent of the national population but 24 per cent of women in prison, whilst ‘African Caribbean’ men are eight times more likely to face the sanction of penal incarceration than white men (Sudbury, 2005b; Berman, 2012). Canada, the final Anglophone country considered here, has experienced what may be described as a ‘slow creep’ towards hyper-incarceration. The prisoner rate in the 1970s and 1980s remained fractionally under 100 per 100,000, although in the last two decades it has consistently exceeded this rate and in 2011 stood at 117 per 100,000. It is important to note, however, that when data on those admitted to custody is analysed, Canada appears not less but more punitive than England and Wales. For example, in 2006 over 232,800 adults were admitted to some form of penal custody, a much higher number than in England and Wales, which is approximately 120,000 (Webster and Doob, 2007). Whatever the difficulties in comparing prisoner rates, Canadian prisons undoubtedly share the same mission 至少从 20 世纪 70 年代开始，英格兰和威尔士就一直处于明显的扩张性刑罚轨迹上。 ^(5){ }^{5} 尽管这一趋势在 1989 年至 1992 年间出现小幅逆转，监狱人口从 50,000 人下降到 41,000 人，但自 1993 年以来，近二十年来，囚犯平均每人数量 (ADP) 每年平均同比增长 3.7% (Berman, 2012)。其结果是囚犯平均每人数量增加了一倍多，在 2006 年 12 月首次超过 80,000 人，并在 2011 年 12 月 2 日达到创纪录的 88,179 人。被归类为“黑人”或“英国黑人”的人占全国人口的 2.7%，但占囚犯人口的 13.4%。 “非洲裔加勒比”女性占全国人口的 1%，但占监狱女性的 24%，而“非洲裔加勒比”男性面临刑事监禁的可能性是白人男性的八倍（Sudbury，2005b；Berman，2012）。加拿大是本文最后一个考虑的英语国家，它经历了堪称“缓慢蔓延”的过度监禁。20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代，其囚犯率略低于每 10 万人 100 人，尽管在过去二十年中，囚犯率一直高于这一水平，2011 年达到每 10 万人 117 人。然而，值得注意的是，在分析被拘留者的数据时，加拿大的惩罚性程度似乎不亚于英格兰和威尔士，反而更高。例如，2006 年，超过 232,800 名成年人被某种形式的刑事拘留，这一数字远高于英格兰和威尔士的约 120,000 人（Webster 和 Doob，2007）。无论比较囚犯比例有多困难，加拿大监狱无疑都肩负着相同的使命。
to control impoverished BME populations and other members of the ‘subproletariat’ (Hall et al., 1978). Aboriginal adults make up 4 per cent of the national population but 21 per cent of male prisoners and 30 per cent of female prisoners. In some places such as in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, Aboriginals account for more than for 70 per cent of men and 80 per cent of women sentenced to imprisonment, despite being only 15 per cent of the population. Prisons have always drawn their clientele from the poorest segments of the proletatiat but, as the above data indicate, the racist legacy of English colonialism is also clearly evident in prisoner populations across Anglophone nations. 控制贫困的少数族裔和少数族裔群体以及其他“次无产阶级”成员（Hall 等人，1978）。原住民成年人占全国人口的 4%，但却占男性囚犯的 21%，女性囚犯的 30%。在曼尼托巴省或萨斯喀彻温省等地，原住民仅占总人口的 15%，却占被判入狱的男性囚犯的 70% 以上，占女性囚犯的 80% 以上。监狱的囚犯通常来自最贫困的无产阶级，但如上数据所示，英国殖民主义的种族主义遗产在英语国家的囚犯群体中也显而易见。
Penal excess and the disproportionate imprisonment of impoverished BME populations are widespread in Western Europe. Spain, France and the Netherlands have all seen record-number prisoner populations in the last decade, although Germany has resisted this trend somewhat. Spanish prison populations have sharply increased since the early 1970s: the 2011 prisoner ADP of 73,459 is four times higher than the equivalent figure in 1970, and the enlargement of the prisoner population has been particularly marked since the new millennium (Institute of 西欧普遍存在刑罚过度和对贫困的少数族裔群体（BME）不成比例的监禁。过去十年，西班牙、法国和荷兰的囚犯人数均创历史新高，尽管德国在一定程度上抵制了这一趋势。自 20 世纪 70 年代初以来，西班牙的监狱人口急剧增加：2011 年平均每百人囚犯人数（ADP）为 73,459 人，是 1970 年的四倍，而新千年以来，囚犯人数的增长尤为显著（犯罪研究所）
1 . Penitentiaries, 2012). With a prisoner rate of 159 per 100,000, Spain is the highest penal incarcerator in Western Europe, and like many other countries in this region, Spain also has a large number of foreign nationals serving long sentences (De Giorgi, 2011; Walmsley, 2012; see also De Giorgi, Chapter 2 of this volume). The prisoner rate in France has fluctuated considerably (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006). In 1985, for example, the prisoner rate was 72 prisoners per 100,000 . Within three years the prisoner population increased by over 12,000 to leave a rate of 92 prisoners per 100,000 in 1988, yet by 1990 it had fallen back to 81 prisoners per 100,000. Despite regular amnesties and pardons, there is evidence of a ‘slow creep’ in France. ^(6){ }^{6} In July 2012 the French prisoner ADP reached a record high of 67,373 prisoners - a prisoner rate of 101 per 100,000. Although foreign nationals comprised only 6 per cent of the population, they accounted for 21 per cent of the prison population. 1.监狱，2012 年）。西班牙的囚犯率为每 100,000 人中有 159 人，是西欧监禁率最高的国家。与该地区的许多其他国家一样，西班牙也有大量外国人服长期徒刑（De Giorgi，2011 年；Walmsley，2012 年；另见 De Giorgi，本卷第 2 章）。法国的囚犯率波动很大（Cavadino 和 Dignan，2006 年）。例如，1985 年的囚犯率为每 100,000 人中有 72 人。三年内，囚犯人数增加了 12,000 多人，1988 年的囚犯率为每 100,000 人中有 92 人，但到 1990 年又回落到每 100,000 人中有 81 人。尽管法国定期实行大赦和赦免，但有证据表明，囚犯人数正在“缓慢增长”。 ^(6){ }^{6} 2012 年 7 月，法国囚犯人数创历史新高，达到 67,373 人，平均每 10 万人中就有 101 人被关押。尽管外国人仅占法国总人口的 6%，但他们却占监狱总人口的 21%。
The Netherlands, once eulogised as a leading example of penal tolerance, has witnessed one of the most dramatic increases in prisoner rates on the planet. In 1973 the Netherlands had a prisoner rate of just 荷兰曾被誉为刑罚宽容的典范，但如今，该国的囚犯率却出现了全球最急剧的增长。1973年，荷兰的囚犯率仅为
18 per 100,000. By 2005 the prisoner rate had ballooned to 127 per 100,000.^(7)100,000 .^{7} Indeed, of the twelve selected countries, only the USA has experienced a similar escalation in the use of penal incarceration. During this time the proportion of foreign national prisoners grew rapidly, rising from 12 per cent in 1981 to 26 per cent in 1992. Whilst there is some evidence that the Netherlands has turned a corner in terms of penal expansionism, with the prisoner tate declining to 94 by 2010 , in the same year the share of foreign national prisoners rose to 32 per cent. The case of Germany is a little different, at least in terms of rising prisoner populations. Whilst the prisoner population did increase in the latter part of the twentieth century, in recent times it has declined. The 2010 figure of 85 per 100,000 had returned to the exact same figure as 1970. Notwithstanding, Germany does not deviate in terms of the over-representation of foreign nationals, with 34 per cent of its prisoners designated as ‘immigrants’ (De Giorgi, 2011). Undoubtedy it is those foreign nationals who face precarious working and living conditions that fill such prisons (Wacquant, 2006, 2010b; De Giorgi, 2011; see also De Giorgi, Chapter 2 of this volume). 每 100,000 人中有 18 人。到 2005 年，囚犯率已飙升至每 100,000.^(7)100,000 .^{7} 127 人。事实上，在选定的 12 个国家中，只有美国在使用监禁方面经历了类似的升级。在此期间，外国囚犯的比例迅速增长，从 1981 年的 12% 上升到 1992 年的 26%。虽然有证据表明荷兰在刑罚扩张主义方面已经出现转折，到 2010 年囚犯比例下降到 94 人，但同年外国囚犯的比例上升到 32%。德国的情况略有不同，至少在囚犯人数增加方面。虽然囚犯人数在二十世纪后期确实有所增加，但近年来有所下降。 2010 年，每 10 万人中 85 人被关押，这一数字已恢复到 1970 年的水平。尽管如此，德国在外国囚犯比例过高方面也并无太大差异，34%的囚犯被认定为“移民”（De Giorgi，2011）。毫无疑问，正是这些工作和生活条件不稳定的外国囚犯填满了这些监狱（Wacquant，2006，2010b；De Giorgi，2011；另见 De Giorgi，本卷第二章）。
Whereas Anglophone and many Western-European countries have indulged in penal excess, for some commentators Nordic countries are places of penal moderation with humane prison conditions (J. Pratt, 2008a, 2008b, 2011; Pratt and Erickson, 2012). Particular focus in recent years has been on Finland, as it is the one country in Europe which has seen a concerted long-term decline in prisoner populations. In the early 1950s the imprisonment rate in Finland stood at 200 per 100,000, and even in the 1970s the Finnish incarceration rate remained one of the highest in Europe. It was not until the 1990s that Finland reached a comparative rate with other Nordic countries, and in 2010 Finland had a prisoner rate of 59 per 100,000 (Lappi-Seppala, 2012). In contrast to many other European countries, Finland also has a low proportion of foreign national prisoners, constituting a relatively modest 13 per cent in 2011.^(8)2011 .^{8} By comparison, Sweden and Norway have experienced a ‘slow creep’ in prisoner rates and have high numbers of (lower working-class) foreign nationals behind bars. In the 1950s Sweden had a prisoner rate of 35 per 100,000. This figure had doubled by the 1960s, 尽管英语国家和许多西欧国家都存在刑罚过度的问题，但一些评论家认为北欧国家刑罚较为温和，监狱条件较为人道（J. Pratt，2008a、2008b、2011；Pratt and Erickson，2012）。近年来，芬兰成为关注的焦点，因为它是欧洲唯一一个囚犯人数长期持续下降的国家。20 世纪 50 年代初，芬兰的监禁率为每 10 万人 200 人，即使在 20 世纪 70 年代，芬兰的监禁率仍然是欧洲最高的国家之一。直到 20 世纪 90 年代，芬兰的监禁率才与其他北欧国家相当，2010 年芬兰的囚犯率为每 10 万人 59 人（Lappi-Seppala，2012）。与许多其他欧洲国家相比，芬兰的外国囚犯比例较低，占比仅为 13%。 2011.^(8)2011 .^{8} 相比之下，瑞典和挪威的囚犯比例呈“缓慢上升”趋势，且有大量（低收入工人阶级）外国囚犯。20 世纪 50 年代，瑞典的囚犯比例为每 10 万人 35 人。到 20 世纪 60 年代，这一数字翻了一番。
and since the 1970s there has been a gradual increase in prisoner rates. In 2010 Sweden had a prisoner rate of 78 per 100,000, and foreign nationals constituted 28 per cent of the prisoner population (Dullum and Ugelyik, 2012; Walmsley, 2012). A ‘slow creep’ in Norwegian prisons has also been evident since the mid 1980s. Whilst there have been only modest increases, from for example 56 per 100,000 in 1990 to 73 per 100,000 in 2011, what is most notable is the drastic increase in the number of foreign national prisoner, rising from 19 per cent of the prison population in 2007 to 33 per cent by June 2012 (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2012). Though both Norway and Sweden continue to have low populations compared to most other countries in Europe, prisoner rates are not as low as they once were. 自 1970 年代以来，囚犯比例逐渐上升。2010 年瑞典的囚犯比例为每 100,000 人 78 人，外国人占囚犯总数的 28%（Dullum 和 Ugelyik，2012 年；Walmsley，2012 年）。自 1980 年代中期以来，挪威监狱的囚犯比例也呈“缓慢上升”趋势。虽然增幅不大，例如从 1990 年的每 100,000 人 56 人增加到 2011 年的每 100,000 人 73 人，但最引人注目的是外国囚犯数量的急剧增加，从 2007 年占监狱人口的 19% 上升到 2012 年 6 月的 33%（国际监狱研究中心，2012 年）。尽管与欧洲大多数其他国家相比，挪威和瑞典的人口数量仍然较低，但囚犯率却不像以前那么低了。
Before reaching any firm conclusions, some of the problems associated with analysing comparative prison data should be highlighted. Let us first consider the disquiet regarding ‘Nordic exceptionalism’ (Dullum and Ugelvik, 2012). Concerns have been raised about accepting official data without sufficient consideration of the ‘subaltern’ voices of prisonets, prisoner collective struggles or alternative ‘non-official’ sources of information (A. M. Jefferson, 2012). Critics note that rates of prisoners per 100,000 of the population may obscure as much as they reveal because: Nordic countries have, in the main, short sentences but reasonably large numbers of people processed through penal systems (Mathiesen, 2012); low prisoner rates do not indicate a humane penal system, and rates of self-inflicted deaths, which are relatively high in Nordic prisons, may prove more reliable in terms of indicating how prisoners experience penal incarceration (Mathiesen, 2012); it is impossible to grade pain (Christie, 1981), understand prison conditions outside the wider material conditions pertaining in a society (Neumann, 2012) or remove the inherent harms and pains of penal incarceration (Scott and Codd, 2010); and pre-trail detention and solitary confinement in Nordic nations provide a significant example of inhumane penal practices that are obscured by a focus on official quantitative data (Sharff-Smith, 2012). It is important to recognise that the intensification of penal discipline and control that Thomas Mathiesen (1990) highlights is not only about rising prisoner ADP rates. 在得出任何确切结论之前，应该强调与分析比较监狱数据相关的一些问题。首先，让我们考虑一下对“北欧例外论”的担忧（Dullum 和 Ugelvik，2012）。有人担心，在没有充分考虑囚犯的“底层”声音、囚犯集体抗争或其他“非官方”信息来源的情况下接受官方数据（AM Jefferson，2012）。批评人士指出，每十万人口的囚犯率可能掩盖其揭示的真相，因为：北欧国家的刑期大多较短，但通过刑罚系统处理的人数相当多（Mathiesen，2012）；低囚犯率并不表明刑罚系统人道，而北欧监狱中自杀率相对较高，这在表明囚犯的刑罚监禁经历方面可能更可靠（Mathiesen，2012）；不可能对痛苦进行分级（Christie，1981），不可能脱离社会更广泛的物质条件来理解监狱条件（Neumann，2012），也不可能消除刑事监禁所固有的伤害和痛苦（Scott and Codd，2010）；北欧国家的审前拘留和单独监禁是非人道刑罚实践的重要例证，而这些实践因关注官方定量数据而被掩盖（Sharff-Smith，2012）。必须认识到，托马斯·马蒂森（Thomas Mathiesen，1990）强调的刑罚纪律和控制的强化不仅仅是囚犯 ADP 率的上升。
The above problems regarding data on ‘Nordic exceptionalism’ are characteristic of general difficulties measuring international prisoner rates (Brodeur, 2007; Scott, 2008; Snacken and Dumortier, 2012). Official ‘prisoner rates’ are not standardised tools comparing ‘like with like’. For a start, not all nations define ‘prison’ and their populations in 上述关于“北欧例外论”数据的问题，是衡量国际囚犯比率普遍存在的难题（Brodeur，2007；Scott，2008；Snacken 和 Dumortier，2012）。官方的“囚犯比率”并非用于比较“同类”的标准化工具。首先，并非所有国家都以“监狱”及其人口来定义监狱。
the same way: some countries include juvenile offenders and/or those in psychiatric ‘care’ in penal custody statistics, whilst others provide data on adult prisoners only. Finland and Sweden include 15-17-year-olds in their prisoner rates, whilst the Netherlands include juveniles confined under both the civil and criminal law, resulting in competing estimations depending on which category is included or excluded (Tonry, 2007). In other words, widely different data are available on prisoner rates of the same country for a given year. This makes genuinely accurate measurement impossible. As in the Nordic case, the meanings of official prisoner rates are also contested. Measuring the prisoner ADP or prisoner rates may be less accurate at predicting sentencing trends than, for example, measures examining the average days served by prisoners or the relationship between arrests, prosecution and conviction in a given country (Pease, 1994). Though existing official quantitative data on prison populations should not be dismissed out of hand, it should be interpreted with the greatest of care and its limitations duly recognised. 同样，一些国家将青少年罪犯和/或接受精神病“照护”的罪犯纳入刑事拘留统计数据，而其他国家仅提供成年囚犯的数据。芬兰和瑞典的囚犯率包括 15 至 17 岁的青少年，而荷兰则同时包括根据民法和刑法监禁的青少年，因此根据包含或排除哪一类别，估计值会相互竞争（Tonry，2007）。换句话说，同一国家在某一年提供的囚犯率数据差别很大。这使得真正准确的测量不可能实现。与北欧的情况一样，官方囚犯率的含义也存在争议。衡量囚犯平均服刑天数或囚犯率在预测量刑趋势方面的准确性可能低于例如衡量某个国家囚犯平均服刑天数或逮捕、起诉和定罪之间关系的指标（Pease，1994）。尽管现有的有关监狱人口的官方定量数据不应被轻易否定，但应非常谨慎地解释这些数据，并充分认识到其局限性。
There are also considerable differences in the way comparative data have been analysed. Three broad approaches can be identified: convergence, diversity and context. Theorists of convergence have aimed to highlight globalised socioeconomic and political developments in the last four decades that can explain the global penal incarceration binge (Garland, 2001c; Simon, 2007; Wacquant, 2009b) or identified particular clusters of nations that represent specific political economic or cultural commonalities (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006; Lacey, 2008; J. Pratt, 2011). Theorists of diversity have focused on the specific ‘risk and protective factors’ pertaining in a given nation shaping penal policy and incarceration rates (Tonry, 2007; Green, 2008; Snacken and Dumortier, 2012) or emphasised the manner in which the penal practices of each nation are so deeply embedded within their own history and culture that questions of their ‘travels’ must be considered very carefully (Melossi, 2011). A third approach recognises distinct national and historical penal practices but contextualises them within a recognition of the intensification of global economic and social inequalities underscoring liberal market and transnational capitalist economies, patriarchies, heteronormativity and neocolonial, racialised ideologies. This allows for an understanding of diversity between nations alongside recognition of a broader authoritarian drift towards a third historical stage of penal incarceration to control the global poor (Mathiesen, 1990; Sudbury, 2005a; A. Y. Davis, 2012; see also Scott, Chapter 15 of this volume). 比较数据的分析方法也存在显著差异。主要有三种方法：趋同性、多样性和情境性。趋同性理论家致力于强调过去四十年中全球化的社会经济和政治发展，这些发展可以解释全球监禁狂潮（Garland，2001c；Simon，2007；Wacquant，2009b），或识别出代表特定政治、经济或文化共性的特定国家集群（Cavadino 和 Dignan，2006；Lacey，2008；J. Pratt，2011）。多样性理论家们关注的是特定国家特定的“风险与保护因素”，这些因素影响着刑罚政策和监禁率（Tonry，2007；Green，2008；Snacken 和 Dumortier，2012），或强调每个国家的刑罚实践都深深植根于其自身的历史和文化之中，因此必须非常谨慎地思考其“传承”问题（Melossi，2011）。第三种方法承认各国独特的历史和刑罚实践，但将其置于全球经济和社会不平等加剧的背景下进行分析，这种不平等凸显了自由市场和跨国资本主义经济、父权制、异性恋规范以及新殖民主义和种族主义意识形态的影响。这使得我们能够理解国家之间的多样性，同时也认识到更广泛的威权主义趋势正在向第三个历史阶段转变，即通过监禁来控制全球穷人（Mathiesen，1990 年；Sudbury，2005 年 a；AY Davis，2012 年；另见 Scott，本卷第 15 章）。 ^("r "){ }^{\text {r }} Though it would be disingenuous to claim that the official prison data cited above, based as they are on quantitative snap shots of only twelve countries with no reference to rates in Africa, Asia or South America, alone provide incontrovertible evidence of global hyper-incarceration, it does strongly indicate a globalised trend towards an intensification of penal discipline. Prison populations, at different speeds in different countries, are in the main growing, and they not only contain poor people but disproportionately poor men and women classified as BME, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers or foreign nationals (see also De Giorgi, Chapter 2 of this volume). The question is: why? ^("r "){ }^{\text {r }} 尽管声称上述官方监狱数据（仅基于 12 个国家的定量数据，未参考非洲、亚洲或南美洲的比率）本身就足以证明全球存在过度监禁，这未免有些虚伪，但它确实有力地表明了全球化趋势，即刑罚惩戒的强化。不同国家的监狱人口增长速度不同，但总体而言，监狱人口的增长速度并不相同，其中不仅包括贫困人口，还包括被归类为少数族裔、移民、难民、寻求庇护者或外国人的贫困男女（另见 De Giorgi，本卷第二章）。问题是：为什么？
QUESTIONING INCARCERATION 质疑监禁
The global growth of penal incarceration could be taken to imply that prison has been successful in terms of meeting its stated aims. To some people it may even seem peculiar to ask the question ‘why prison?’ surely the answer is self-evident: prisons have existed for centuries as places of punishment, so there must be a clear, uncontested rationale which explains their introduction, historical development and current expansion. And yet, like exposing an emperor with no clothes, when the apparently obvious reasons for imprisonment are closely examined, they are laid bare as a naked sham. Let us briefly, but critically, review five well-rehearsed arguments in defence of the prison. 全球监禁率的增长或许意味着监狱在实现其既定目标方面取得了成功。对某些人来说，提出“为什么要设立监狱”这个问题甚至可能显得有些奇怪。答案显而易见：监狱作为惩罚场所已经存在了几个世纪，因此其引入、历史发展和当前的扩张必然有清晰、无可争议的理由。然而，就像揭穿皇帝的赤身裸体一样，当仔细审视那些显而易见的监禁理由时，它们就会被揭露为赤裸裸的谎言。让我们简要而批判地回顾五个为监狱辩护的论据。
Prisons are a natural and inevitable response to ‘crime’ No straightforward relationship exists between ‘crime’ and imprisonment. Prisoners (in most cases) have breached and been prosecuted under the criminal law. This, however, must be understood within the context of the meaning, definition and differential application of the criminal label. ‘Crime’ is an unstable concept, and the diverse sets of behaviours it brings together are united only by the criminal process itself (Hulsman, 1986). Rather than being fixed and constant, the meanings and content of ‘crime’ change depending upon time, place, perpetrator and audience, with the criminal label more likely to be applied if the perpetrator is successfully distanced (Christie, 2004). Selective police surveillance in societies shaped by the determining contexts of capitalism, patriarchies and neocolonialism has resulted in the unequal application of criminal law against socially disadvantaged groups (Sim et al., 1987; Barton et al., 2006; Sim, 2009). For as long as we continue to classify and control certain behaviour by certain people 监狱是对“犯罪”的自然而不可避免的回应。“犯罪”与监禁之间并不存在直接的关系。囚犯（在大多数情况下）违反了刑法并受到起诉。然而，这必须在罪犯标签的含义、定义和差异化应用的背景下理解。“犯罪”是一个不稳定的概念，它所涵盖的各种行为只有通过犯罪过程本身才能统一起来（Hulsman，1986）。“犯罪”的含义和内容并非固定不变，而是会随着时间、地点、犯罪者和受众的变化而变化，如果犯罪者被成功疏远，则更有可能被贴上罪犯的标签（Christie，2004）。在资本主义、父权制和新殖民主义等决定性背景塑造的社会中，选择性的警察监控导致了刑法对社会弱势群体的不平等适用（Sim 等人，1987；Barton 等人，2006；Sim，2009）。只要我们继续对某些人的特定行为进行分类和控制
using the criminal label, ‘crime’ will continue to have a relationship to rates of penal incarceration. How they interconnect, however, is extremely complex. ‘Crime’ and punishment have great symbolic resonance detached from actual or perceived rates of illegalities, and single criminalised acts can, and do, disproportionately impact on penal policies. A spate of high-profile killings or the horrific death of a child is likely in many countries to monopolise media agendas more than mundane but widespread troublesome incidents (Hall et al., 1978; Simon, 2007; Green, 2008; see also Scott, Chapter 15 of this volume). Because its definition and application is likely to remain unchallenged, ‘crime’ can be manipulated to justify authoritarian state intervention without an actual increase in prevalence (Hall et al., 1978; Sim et al., 1987). This indicates that it would be wrong to assume that the main cause of global hyper-incarceration is directly linked to rises in recorded ‘crime’. Indeed, at times they do not even correlate. Let us consider recorded ‘crime’ rates in five of the countries highlighted earlier. In the 1990 s there were increases in violent ‘crime’ in the USA, Canada, Germany and Finland. Only in the USA did this result in rapidly escalating rates of penal incarceration. In Germany and Canada, the prisoner rate showed only evidence of a ‘slow creep’ or remained reasonably stable, whereas numbers actually declined in Finland (Tonry, 2001; LappiSeppala, 2012). In England and Wales, after a number of decades in which ‘official crime rates’ had risen dramatically, ‘crime’ figures stabilised and then began to decline from 1993. Yet, in the twenty-year period since, the prison population has continued to rise without abatement. To dismiss ‘crime’ entirely from the equation would be a mistake, but there are clearly other reasons why prisons persist and continue to expand. 使用罪犯标签，“犯罪”将继续与监禁率保持关联。然而，它们之间的相互关联极其复杂。“犯罪”和惩罚具有巨大的象征意义，这与实际或感知到的违法率无关，单一的犯罪行为可能对刑事政策产生不成比例的影响。在许多国家，一系列备受瞩目的杀人案或儿童惨死事件比平凡但普遍存在的麻烦事件更容易占据媒体议程（Hall 等人，1978 年；Simon，2007 年；Green，2008 年；另见 Scott，本卷第 15 章）。由于其定义和应用可能不会受到质疑，“犯罪”可以被操纵，以证明专制国家干预的合理性，而无需实际增加其发生率（Hall 等人，1978 年；Sim 等人，1987 年）。这表明，认为全球过度监禁的主要原因与记录在案的“犯罪”率上升直接相关是错误的。事实上，有时它们甚至不相关。让我们来看看前面提到的五个国家的记录在案的“犯罪”率。20 世纪 90 年代，美国、加拿大、德国和芬兰的暴力“犯罪”都有所增加。只有美国的监禁率才迅速上升。在德国和加拿大，囚犯率仅呈现“缓慢上升”或保持相对稳定，而芬兰的囚犯率实际上有所下降（Tonry，2001；LappiSeppala，2012）。在英格兰和威尔士，在“官方犯罪率”急剧上升数十年后，“犯罪”数字趋于稳定，并从 1993 年开始下降。然而，在此后的二十年里，监狱人口持续上升，没有丝毫减弱的迹象。 完全将“犯罪”排除在外是错误的，但监狱持续存在并不断扩张显然还有其他原因。
2. Prison prevents 'crime' by deterring offenders 2. 监狱通过震慑犯罪者来预防“犯罪”
Popularised by politicians and academics alike under the slogan ‘prison works’ (Murray, 1997), the idea that prisons have a deterrent. effect appears almost self-evident. The logic behind deterrence is firmly rooted in the utilitarian calculus that to deter the rational offender requires the pain of imprisonment to outweigh the pleasure derived from ‘crime’. Yet the role of prison as a means of deterring ‘crime’ is vulnerable to critique on a number of grounds, most damningly because most people who refrain from problematic conducts do so for redsons unconnected to the penal law. On the one hand, moral conscience or family reputation seem to act as the main barriers to wrongdoing for 政治家和学者们都在“监狱工程”（Murray，1997）的口号下大力推广监狱具有威慑力的观点，这几乎是不言而喻的。威慑背后的逻辑根植于功利主义的考量：要震慑理性的犯罪者，需要监禁的痛苦超过“犯罪”带来的快感。然而，监狱作为震慑“犯罪”手段的作用很容易受到批评，理由有很多，其中最令人痛心的是，大多数避免不良行为的人，其行为与刑法无关。一方面，道德良知或家庭声誉似乎是阻止犯罪的主要障碍，而另一方面，
many. On the other hand, people already stigmatised, impoverished and excluded are less likely to fear further stigmatisation through criminal prosecution (Golash, 2005). The very logic of deterrence has also been questioned. Most people do not rationalise and calculate costs and benefits about ‘crimes’. Further, not only is it actually impossible to determine if deterrence has a positive effect (we cannot measure what does not happen) but what evidence we do have - recidivism rates overwhelmingly indicates that prison does not prevent ‘crime’. In England and Wales, for example, recidivism is high for both young ( 75 per cent) and adult ( 50 per cent) ex-prisoners, and even here these data only measure those ex-prisoners who both offend and are caught (Scott and Codd, 2010). Indeed, prisons not only fail to deter ‘crime’ but also have criminogenic effects, which have surely only escalated in our time of global hyper-incarceration. Thus, rather than controlling ‘crime’, deterrence may more plausibly be considered as a means of controlling populations (Mathiesen, 1990). For Rusche and Kirchheimer (1939/2003) the value of human life is intimately tied to the current value of human labour, and in times of economic instability and financial crisis, prisons perform a key role in deterring the poor and marginalised through the principles of lesser eligibility. Unhygienic living conditions and penal servitude send a clear message to the labouring classes that if they do not conform to the rigours of the labour market, an even worse fate could yet befall them. This suggestion, however, indicates a more symbolic role for imprisonment, shifting attention away from any obvious ‘crime’-prison link and towards a consideration of political economy (see also De Giorgi, Chapter 2 of this volume). 很多。另一方面，那些已经遭受污名化、贫困化和被排斥的人不太可能担心因刑事起诉而进一步蒙受污名化（Golash，2005）。威慑的逻辑本身也受到了质疑。大多数人不会理性地计算“犯罪”的成本和收益。此外，不仅实际上无法确定威慑是否具有积极作用（我们无法衡量哪些行为没有发生），而且我们现有的证据——累犯率——也压倒性地表明，监狱并不能预防“犯罪”。例如，在英格兰和威尔士，年轻（75%）和成年（50%）的前囚犯的累犯率都很高，而且即使在这里，这些数据也只衡量了那些犯罪后被捕的前囚犯（Scott and Codd，2010）。事实上，监狱不仅无法阻止“犯罪”，而且还具有犯罪诱因，而这种影响在我们这个全球过度监禁的时代无疑只会加剧。因此，与其说威慑是为了控制“犯罪”，不如说威慑更可能被视为一种控制人口的手段（Mathiesen, 1990）。Rusche 和 Kirchheimer（1939/2003）认为，人类生命的价值与人类劳动力的当前价值密切相关，在经济不稳定和金融危机时期，监狱通过降低入狱资格的原则，在威慑贫困和边缘群体方面发挥着关键作用。恶劣的生活条件和苦役向劳动阶级传递了一个明确的信息：如果他们不适应劳动力市场的严苛要求，更糟糕的命运可能降临到他们头上。 然而，这种说法表明了监禁更具象征意义，将人们的注意力从任何明显的“犯罪”与监狱之间的联系转移到政治经济的考虑上（另见 De Giorgi，本卷第 2 章）。
3. Prisont turns bad criminals into good citizens 3. 监狱把坏罪犯变成好公民
It is often argued that effectively managed prisons can provide an opportunity to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and to ‘bring home’ prisoner responsibilities. Rehabilitation in recent times has been associated with a treatment model where wrongdoing is conceived as an individual or social disease and, if the problems can be correctly diagnosed, offenders can be cured (Scott and Codd, 2010). Yet ‘crime’ is neither an ‘illness’ nor a ‘disease’ but a social construct, and by focusing upon perceived pathologies rooted in individual or social defects, rehabilitation as treatment is profoundly deterministic and denies human agency and moral choices (Scott, 2008, 2009). Treatment programmes individualise ‘other’ lawbreakers as cognitively different whilst at the same time ignoring wider problematic social circumstances and structural 人们常认为，有效管理的监狱可以降低囚犯再次犯罪的可能性，并让他们“牢记”自己的责任。近年来，康复与一种治疗模式联系在一起，这种模式将不法行为视为一种个人或社会疾病，如果能够正确诊断这些问题，罪犯就能被治愈（Scott and Codd，2010）。然而，“犯罪”既不是“疾病”，也不是“病”，而是一种社会建构。康复作为一种治疗手段，关注的是根植于个人或社会缺陷的已知病态，具有深刻的确定性，否定了人类的自主性和道德选择（Scott，2008，2009）。治疗方案将“其他”违法者个体化，认为他们在认知上存在差异，同时又忽视了更广泛的问题性社会环境和结构性因素。
divisions such as poverty, sexism and racism (Kendal, 2002). The pains of incarceration are always more likely to dehabilitate rather than act as a conduit for reflection and growth (Mathiesen, 1990). Historically, rehabilitation has also been closely associated with work, penal servitude and discipline (ibid.). Although today some countries, such as the USA, pay mere lip service to the idea of rehabilitation; in others, as evidenced in penal policy documents such as Breaking the Cycle (Ministry of Justice (MoJ), 2010) in England and Wales, a focus on rehabilitation through work has once again come to prominence. Under this rationale, work is considered an essential part of a person’s ‘normal’ activity and an effective means to cure laziness, instil discipline or simply use up time and energy that may otherwise be channelled into lawbreaking (Foucault, 1977). Although prisons are much more likely to create unemployability rather than a skilled reserve army of labour, the political appeal of prisons being perceived as a place of discipline and hard work grinding bad men and women good should not be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, this ‘need for discipline’ can help explain the authoritarian drift towards hyper-incarceration in many countries around the world. 诸如贫困、性别歧视和种族歧视等差异（Kendal，2002）。监禁的痛苦总是更容易使人丧失能力，而非成为反思和成长的渠道（Mathiesen，1990）。历史上，改造也与工作、苦役和纪律密切相关（同上）。尽管如今一些国家（例如美国）对改造的理念只是口头上说说而已；但在其他国家，正如英格兰和威尔士的《打破循环》（司法部，2010）等刑事政策文件所表明的那样，通过工作进行改造的重点再次凸显。基于这种理念，工作被视为一个人“正常”活动的重要组成部分，也是治愈懒惰、培养纪律或消耗原本可能被用于违法的时间和精力的有效手段（Foucault，1977）。尽管监狱更有可能造成失业，而不是培养一批技术熟练的后备劳动力，但监狱被视为一个严惩恶人、艰苦劳作的场所，其政治吸引力不应被轻易忽视。事实上，这种“纪律需求”或许可以解释世界许多国家威权主义为何倾向于过度监禁。
4. Prisons protect the public from 'dangerous offenders' 4. 监狱保护公众免受“危险罪犯”的侵害
Global hyper-incarceration cannot be explained due to rising recorded violent ‘crime’. Though in popular mythology prisons contain ‘dangerous offenders’ who would present a serious future risk to public safety if not imprisoned, all the data indicate that the vast majority of prisoners are not ‘dangerous’, at least not when first imprisoned. Prisoners around the globe are generally people with impoverished social backgrounds who suffer from significant health problems and have perpetrated relatively minor property offences (Ruggiero et al., 1996; Weiss and South, 1998; Scott, 2008). In the USA, which has seen the greatest rise in penal incarceration in the last few decades, more than 1 million of the prison population have been incarcerated for non-violent offences. This rapid rise in penal incarceration cannot be separated from the increased criminalisation of drug usage in African American communities (Bosworth, 2010a; Alexander, 2011). ‘Categorical suspicion’ (Hudson, 2003) and the control of ‘suspect communities’ (Hillyard, 1995) is well documented in critical criminological analysis, and for some, contemporary penality is underscored by the logic of actuarialism (Simon, 1987; De Giorgi, 2011). Actuarialism entails the systematic analysis of the statistical distribution of criminal behaviours in a given 全球过度监禁现象无法用暴力“犯罪”记录的上升来解释。尽管在民间传说中，监狱里关押着“危险罪犯”，如果不入狱，未来会对公共安全构成严重威胁，但所有数据都表明，绝大多数囚犯并不“危险”，至少在最初入狱时并非如此。全球各地的囚犯通常出身贫困，患有严重的健康问题，且犯下的财产犯罪相对较轻（Ruggiero 等人，1996 年；Weiss 和 South，1998 年；Scott，2008 年）。在过去几十年中，美国监禁率增长最为显著，超过 100 万囚犯因非暴力犯罪而被监禁。监禁率的快速上升与非裔美国人群体中吸毒犯罪的增加密不可分（Bosworth，2010 年；Alexander，2011 年）。 “类别怀疑”（Hudson，2003）和“嫌疑人群体”（Hillyard，1995）的控制在批判性犯罪学分析中得到了充分的记录，而对某些人来说，当代刑罚则以精算主义的逻辑为基础（Simon，1987；De Giorgi，2011）。精算主义需要对特定环境中犯罪行为的统计分布进行系统分析。
population where criminalisation is closely linked to the group to which the offender belongs rather than the actual offence committed. Its effectiveness is dependent upon the aggregation of criminal characteristics and the subsequent use of techniques to identify those who most closely fit criminal risk profiles. This entirely removes individuals from the ‘crime’ control equation (Simon, 1987). Such a rationale sees the end of the acknowledgement of ‘false positives’ (people wrongly predicted to offend in the future) as now the criteria of accuracy is judged solely on the correspondence between risk profiles and individual characteristics. Grounded in positivism and risk assessments, this approach is philosophically untenable because quite frankly we do not have the ability to accurately predict who will commit (serious) offences in the future (Mathiesen, 1990). Braithwaite and Pettit (1990) claim that even the best prediction techniques are wrong at least twice as often as they are right, whilst Deidre Golash (2005) estimates that predictions are generally wrong eight times out of nine. Prisons are not filled to the brim with dangerous offenders, but rather with lower working-class, BME, migrant and foreign national lawbreakers. What does remain plausible after such revelations is an analysis of advanced capitalist, neocolonial, patriarchal and heteronormative societies which identifies the prison as performing an important role in maintaining economic and social inequalities through the selective incapacitation of the ‘detritus and the damned’ (Mathiesen, 1990; A. Y. Davis, 2012; see also Cooper and Sim, Chapter 10 and Meiners, Chapter 13 of this volume). 人口统计学方法中，定罪与犯罪者所属群体密切相关，而非与实际犯罪行为本身相关。其有效性取决于犯罪特征的汇总，以及随后运用技术手段识别最符合犯罪风险特征的人群。这将个人完全排除在“犯罪”控制方程之外（Simon，1987）。这种理论认为，“误报”（被错误预测未来会犯罪的人）的认定已不复存在，因为现在的准确性标准仅仅取决于风险特征与个人特征之间的对应关系。这种方法基于实证主义和风险评估，在哲学上站不住脚，因为坦率地说，我们无法准确预测未来谁会犯下（严重）罪行（Mathiesen，1990）。 Braithwaite 和 Pettit (1990) 声称，即使是最好的预测技术，其错误率也至少是正确率的两倍，而 Deidre Golash (2005) 估计，预测通常有九分之八是错误的。监狱里并非挤满了危险的罪犯，而是关押着下层工人阶级、少数族裔、移民和外国违法者。在这些揭露真相之后，对发达资本主义、新殖民主义、父权制和异性恋规范社会进行分析，仍然显得可信，这种分析认为，监狱通过选择性地使“残缺者和被诅咒者”丧失行为能力，在维持经济和社会不平等方面发挥着重要作用（Mathiesen, 1990; AY Davis, 2012；另见本卷 Cooper 和 Sim，第 10 章以及 Meiners，第 13 章）。
5. Prison reflects our need to punish 'crime' 5. 监狱体现了我们惩罚“犯罪”的需要
Penal incarceration appears so deeply entrenched in our cultural sensibilities that prison and punishment have become almost synonymous (Melossi and Pavarini, 1981). It has long been recognised that punishment may be intended as a moral message to denounce ‘crime’, with its severity reflecting collective indignation and revulsion (Durkheim, 1893/1984). The effect and intent of the expressive and symbolic role of incarceration are open to debate, but there are concerns that the penal obesity of the last four decades has so far failed to satisfy appetites for penal destruction. For some commentators, populist punitiveness drives contemporary penal excess, with its power being directly connected to the weakening of state bureaucracies and the rise in political influence of an unredeemable mob demanding longer and harsher sentences (J. Pratt, 2007). Evidence to support this assertion is a little thin on the ground; those studies that have investigated public opinions on 监禁似乎在我们的文化情感中根深蒂固，以至于监狱和惩罚几乎成了同义词（Melossi and Pavarini, 1981）。人们早已认识到，惩罚可能旨在传递一种谴责“犯罪”的道德信息，其严厉程度反映了集体的愤慨和厌恶（Durkheim, 1893/1984）。监禁的表达性和象征性作用的效果和意图尚待商榷，但人们担心，过去四十年来的刑罚过度至今未能满足人们对刑罚毁灭的渴望。一些评论家认为，民粹主义的惩罚性导致了当代刑罚的过度，其力量与国家官僚机构的弱化以及一群不可救药的暴徒的政治影响力的上升直接相关，他们要求更长更严厉的刑罚（J. Pratt, 2007）。支持这一论断的证据并不充分；那些调查公众对……的看法的研究……
punishment indicate that when people are well informed, they are considerably less punitive than public opinion polls suggest (Green, 2008). More sophisticated accounts have laid the problem of penal excess and the penalisation of sites of state detention at the door of increasing economic and social inequalities and weakening social solidarities (de Haan, 1990; Christie, 2000; Bosworth, 2010a) or explored the ways in which fears and anxieties concerning ‘crime’ have been deliberately orchestrated from above to shift attention away from the real problems in society (Hall et al., 1978; Beckett, 1997b; Simon, 2007; Sim, 2009; see also Bell, Chapter 3 of this volume). It is also questionable whether the demand for the infliction of pain and suffering is healthy, as the venom of punishment ispoisonous for all it encounters. It is unlikely that suffering can expiate guilt or provide a good way of restoring relationships, and punishment is not a very effective means of moral communication (Mathiesen, 1990). Few would doubt that some kind of response is required for many of those behaviours currently defined as ‘crimes’, but there is no obvious reason why this should be imprisonment. Two wrongs can never make a right. We do not need to punish - alternative and rational means of redress and conflict resolution are feasible within the immanent possibilities of our times (de Haan, 1990; see also Scott, Chapter 15 of this volume). The more brutal we are to those who do wrong or exhibit unpleasant, unattractive and disturbing behaviours, the greater the acceptance of cruelty, the weaker the sensitivity to pain. Punitive societies are callous and morally indifferent to the suffering of others. Consequently the current global expansion of incarceration must be problematised and its targeting of the poor and BME populations exposed. 惩罚表明，当人们充分了解情况时，他们的惩罚力度远低于民意调查的显示（Green，2008）。更复杂的研究则将刑罚过度和国家拘留场所的惩罚性措施问题归咎于日益加剧的经济和社会不平等以及社会团结的弱化（de Haan，1990；Christie，2000；Bosworth，2010a），或探讨了上层如何刻意煽动人们对“犯罪”的恐惧和焦虑，以转移人们对社会真正问题的注意力（Hall et al.，1978；Beckett，1997b；Simon，2007；Sim，2009；另见 Bell，本卷第三章）。同样值得怀疑的是，施加痛苦和折磨的需求是否健康，因为惩罚的毒液对所有遭遇者都具有毒性。苦难不太可能消除罪恶感，也不太可能成为修复人际关系的有效途径，惩罚也不是一种非常有效的道德沟通方式（Mathiesen，1990）。对于许多目前被定义为“犯罪”的行为，几乎无人怀疑需要某种回应，但并没有明显的理由认为这种回应应该是监禁。两个错误永远无法构成一个正确。我们无需惩罚——在我们这个时代固有的可能性范围内，存在着其他可行的、理性的补救和冲突解决方式（de Haan，1990；另见 Scott，本书第 15 章）。我们对那些做错事或表现出令人不快、令人不快和令人不安行为的人越残忍，对残忍的接受度就越高，对痛苦的敏感度就越低。惩罚性社会对他人的痛苦冷漠无情，在道德上漠不关心。 因此，必须对当前全球监禁扩张的问题进行反思，并揭露其针对穷人和少数族裔人群的现象。
STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK 本书结构
When ‘common sense’ assumptions and justifications of imprisonment are subjected to serious critical scrutiny, the prison appears to have no straightforward or obvious defence (Mathiesen, 1990; Golash, 2005; Scott, 2009). Despite the ‘fiasco of its aims’ (Mathiesen, 1990), abolitionist analysis of penal incarceration remains relatively marginalised in the academy, and is often politically de-legitimated. Indeed, tather than being in terminal decline, prison populations in countries all around "the world have risen to unprecedented levels. This phenomenon demands serious academic attention, and in recent years the study of 当“常识性”的假设和监禁的正当性受到严肃的批判性审视时，监狱似乎缺乏直接或明显的辩护理由（Mathiesen, 1990; Golash, 2005; Scott, 2009）。尽管“其目标惨败”（Mathiesen, 1990），废除主义对刑事监禁的分析在学术界仍然相对边缘化，并且常常在政治上被剥夺合法性。事实上，世界各国的监狱人口不仅处于下降趋势，而且已经上升到前所未有的水平。这一现象需要学术界的认真关注，近年来，对……的研究
^(2){ }^{2} I will subsequently just refer to the figure 100,000 . ^(2){ }^{2} 随后我将仅提及数字 100,000。 ^(3){ }^{3} There is some debate over the accuracy of this number, with one commentator pointing to the ^(3){ }^{3} 关于这个数字的准确性存在一些争议，一位评论员指出
4 figure of 380,000 prisoners in the USA at this time (Wacquant, 2009). 4 目前美国有 380,000 名囚犯（Wacquant，2009 年）。
It should be noted that these USA data do not include juveniles and persons in police lockups, a figure which Loïc Wacquant (2009) estimates at atound 140,000 people. 值得注意的是，这些美国数据并不包括青少年和被警方拘留的人员，Loïc Wacquant（2009）估计这个数字约为 140,000 人。
^(5){ }^{5} This is also broadly the case for other countries in the UK. ^(5){ }^{5} 英国其他国家的情况也大致如此。
^(6){ }^{6} The last amnesty law in France was in 2007. The tradition of granting presidential pardons to mark the 14 July celebrations was also ended by President Sarkozy. The recently elected socialist President François Hollande has, so far, refused to sanction any further prisoner amnesties. ^(6){ }^{6} 法国上一次颁布大赦法是在2007年。为纪念7月14日而颁布总统特赦令的传统也被萨科齐总统终结。新当选的社会党总统弗朗索瓦·奥朗德迄今为止拒绝批准任何进一步的囚犯特赦。
^(7){ }^{7} The Netherlands include juveniles and other detainees in its official prison rates. The problem of how different detained populations included in the prisoner rates of different countries can make ^(7){ }^{7} 荷兰的官方监狱率涵盖了青少年和其他被拘留者。不同国家囚犯率中纳入的被拘留人口数量差异问题，可能会使 _(8){ }_{8} international comparisons difficult is discussed below. _(8){ }_{8} 国际比较的困难如下所述。
This is approximately the same number of foreign national prisoners as England and Wales in 2012. 这一数字大约与 2012 年英格兰和威尔士的外国囚犯人数相同。
导出提示
谨慎下载超过 300 页以上 PDF，容易内存溢出。
PDF Pro 下载需借用浏览器的打印功能，出现打印界面后，在【打印机】处选择【另存为 PDF】，最后点击【保存】即可。