6 The Myth of Punitiveness Revisited The problem of definition ‘Over the past few years there has been a steady stream of books and articles that have provided some commentary on what is referred to as cither ‘populist punitiveness’ or ‘penal populism’ (Bottoms 1995; Pratt 2007; Pratt et al. 2005). Significantly, this growing body of literature involves little discussion about what exactly is meant by ‘punitiveness’. Consequently, the concept remains what Marx would have called a ‘chaotic conception’. Thatis, it remains thin concept, lumping together the unrelated and inessential and unable to bear the explanatory weight that researchers put on it, ultimately leading to a form of analysis that descends into voluntarism. Thus, rather than identify the causal proc- cesses and mechanisms involved in the changing nature of crime control, ‘these voluntaristic accounts see the main driver of crime-control poli ies as a product of the will of different individuals or groups. The lack of definition means that potentially all forms of regulation, can be included under the conceptual umbrella of ‘punitiveness’, thus encouraging the belief that a shift towards punitiveness has taken place. In some cases prisons and capital punishment are taken as examples of punitiveness, while in other cases community-based sanctions and alter- natives to custody, such as probation, are given as examples (Martinovie 2002). When most commentators speak of punitiveness, they seem to have in mind the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on individ- uals, but since it is often used as a blanket concept there is little differ- entiation or recognition of the different intensity, purpose and effects of different types of crime-control measures The considerable evidence of what might reasonably be construed as, examples of non-punitive policies ~ including welfare interventions, uyM18 Realist Criminology the widespread deployment of rehabilitative efforts in prisons, the increased use of surveillance and monitoring strategies, the growing use of diversion programmes and use of drug courts and community-based sanctions - the growth of informal and restora- uve justice and the increasing emphasis on crime prevention (none of which is designed to be overtly punitive in the sense of inflicting more pain and suffering on offenders) tends to be ignored or down- played by those whose selective vision sees examples of punitiveness everywhere, It would, of course, be surprising if one could not find some examples of get-tough policies in a system designed to punish and correct problematic behaviour. However, there is a worrying tendency in the crime-control literature to desperately seek out examples of punitiveness while simultaneously ignoring the diver- sity of current crime-control measues. It is important in this context to distinguish intentions and outcomes. The history of penal reform teaches us that even well-intentioned interventions can pected outcomes (Cohen 1985) Many commentators, including those critical of the notion of puni- tiveness, find themselves trapped in a punitive/non-punitive dichotomy. ‘The failure to engage with the counterfactual results in the construction of a simple zero-sum form of explanation, which is no doubt part ofits attraction (Zedner 2002). The complexities, contradictions and tensions in emerging criminal justice policy thereby remain largely unexplored. Alternatively, those that see strategies of crime contol only in terms of punitiveness tend to locate these policies along a punitive continuum, resulting in a form of one-dimensional criminology. ‘The aim of this chapter sto suggest that trying to explain the complex ities of the changing nature of crime control predominantly in terms of the undefined notion of punitiveness leads to a conceptual cul-de-sac. Following previous critiques that suggest the notion of punitiveness is deficient and unduly constraining, this chapter argues that the growing body of literature which has adopted the notion of punitiveness as an organising concept for explaining the changing nature of crime- control has failed to develop our understanding in a meaningful way and is ultimately built on a foundation of sand (Matthews 2005). This debate, however, extends far beyond the limitations of the nation of punitive. ness and the growing number of publications that have focused on it. ‘The widespread reliance on this chaotic conception is indicative of the theoretical malaise within criminology in general and liberal crimi- nology in particularThe Myth of Punitiveness Revisited 119 Missing the punitive turn? Ina recent publication entitled The New Punitiveness (Pratt et al. 2005), we find an interesting mix of articles. Although it appears that this collection was designed to map the Increase in punitiveness in different counties, it contains a nuuber of articles that point out that some coun- ities, including Canada, Italy and Scandinavia, had ‘missed the punitive tum’, Despite the fact that these counties had experienced all or some of the same social, economic and political changes identified as the basis for the apparent rise in punitiveness in both America and the United Kingdom, little evidence was found that would suggest that changes {n criminal justice policy in these countries have been associated with what might be seen as punitiveness Indeed, the prison population in Canada has remained relatively stable since 1960, Although there has been some tough thetoric from politicians over the past two decades, Canadians have maintained a Dalanced approach, combining a commitment to the values of opportu- nity and diversity with an emphasis on rehabilitation and therapeutic interventions (Doob and Webster 2006; Meyer and O'Malley 2005; Moore and Hannah-Moffat 2005). Over the same period Scandinavia has maintained a relative stability in its use of incarceration even in a context of increasing recorded crime rates. The continuing low level of incarceration is combined with strong support for welfare programmes and a culture of tolerance (Bondeson 2005), Prison populations in Scandinavian countries have been relatively low for many years. However, rather than seeing these counties as being ‘more tolerant and less punitive, John Pratt (2008) has argued that they are examples of ‘exceptionalism’, He maintains that they are increas- ingly coming under pressure from a number of forces, including high levels of immigration combined with neoliberal influences, to become ‘more punitive. Weakening solidarity combined with a decreasing toler- ance of the use of illicit drugs has served to increase punitiveness in recent years, which in (urn has increased the prison population. Yet, while there has been a slight increase in the zate of imprisonment in Norway since 1990, it remains relatively low by international standards. In Finland the prison population decreased during the 1990s, though there has been a marginal increase since 2000 (Lappi-Seppala 2007) and even Pratt describes Finland as ‘the new standard bearer in penal toler- ance and leniency’ by advocating decarceration and promoting pris- nets’ rights