This article begins by arguing against the claim of some scholars that the opinions and attitudes of ordinary citizens about criminal justice policy are bounded either by feelings of hostility toward criminal offenders or by indifference toward their rights as human beings. The purpose of this discussion will be to demonstrate that there is sufficient cause to think that meaningful democratic engagement on criminal justice issues is possible, such that an inquiry into the democratic legitimacy of criminal justice policy is worth taking up. This discussion sets the stage for an inquiry into the conditions of democratic legitimacy. The article critiques the view that institutionalized deliberation is a sufficient condition for regarding criminal justice policies as legitimate and argues instead for a radical-democratic approach to evaluating the democratic legitimacy of criminal justice policies.
AlexanderM (2010) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press.
2.
BaertP (2007) Jurgen Habermas. In: ScottJ (ed.) 50 Key Sociologists: The Contemporary Theorists. New York: Routledge, 126–130.
3.
BarkerV (2009) The Politics of Imprisonment: How the Democratic Process Shapes the Way America Punishes Offenders. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
BeckettK (1997) Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
BeckettKSassonT (2000) The Politics of Injustice: Crime in Punishment in America. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
6.
BellD (1987) And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books.
7.
BrownDK (2010) Can criminal law be controlled?Michigan Law Review108(6): 971–991.
8.
BuchananA (2002) Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics112(4): 689–719.
9.
CohenJ (1998) Democracy and liberty. In: ElsterJ (ed.) Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 185–231.
10.
CohenS (2002/1971) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. New York: Routledge.
11.
Della PortaD (2005) Making the polis: Social forums and democracy in the global justice movement. Mobilization10(1): 336–350.
12.
DzurAWMirchandaniR (2007) Punishment and democracy: The role of public deliberation. Punishment & Society9(2): 151–175.
13.
EstlundD (2000) Jeremy Waldron on law and disagreement. Philosophical Studies99(1): 111–128.
14.
FerreeMMGamsonWAGerhardsJRuchtD (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FishkinJ (1995) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
FraserN (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy.Social Text25/26: 56–80.
17.
GamsonWWolsfeldG (1993) Movements and media as interaction systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences528: 114–125.
18.
GarlandD (2009) A note on penal populism. Unpublished manuscript to be published in the Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology.
19.
GoodwinJJasperJ (1999) Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum14(1): 27–54.
20.
GottschalkM (2006) Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GreenD (2006) Public opinion versus public judgment about crime. British Journal of Criminology46(1): 131–154.
22.
GreenD (2008) When Children Kill Children: Penal Populism and Political Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
HabermasJ (1962) Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
24.
HabermasJ (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. LenhardtCNicholsenSW. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
HainesH (1979) Cognitive claims-making, enclosure, and the depoliticization of social problems. Sociological Quarterly20(1): 119–130.
26.
HayC (2007) Why We Hate Politics. Oxford: Polity.
27.
HillyardPTombsS (2007) From ‘crime’ to social harm?Crime, Law, and Social Change48(1–2): 9–25.
KahanDMMearesTL (1999) When rights are wrong. Boston Review24(April–May): 4–8; Meares and Kahan Respond. Boston Review24(April–May): 22–23. Available at: http://bostonreview.net/BR24.2/meares2.html
34.
KeenanA (1997) The beautiful enigma of radical democracy. Theory & Event1(3) [online].
MillsCW (1943) The professional ideology of social pathologists. American Journal of Sociology49(2): 165–180.
46.
MouffeC (2000) The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso.
47.
ParkAHoughM (2002) Attitudes to Crime and Punishment: The Results of a Deliberative Poll. London: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.
48.
ReinarmanCLevineH (1997) Crack in context: America’s latest demon drug. In: ReinarmanCLevineH (eds) Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1–17.
49.
RobertsJV (1992) Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime & Justice16: 99–180.
RyanM (1999) Penal policy making towards the millennium: Elites and populists; New Labour and new criminology. International Journal of the Sociology of Law27(1): 1–22.
52.
SassonT (1995) Crime Talk: How Citizens Construct a Social Problem. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
53.
TonryM (2008) Crime and human rights—how political paranoia, Protestant fundamentalism, and constitutional obsolescence combined to devastate black America: The American Society of Criminology 2007 Presidential Address. Criminology46(1): 1–34.
54.
WesternB (2006) Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
YoungJ (2002) Critical criminology in the twenty-first century: Critique, irony, and the always unfinished. In: CarringtonKHoggR (eds) Critical Criminology: Issues Debates, Challenges. Cullompton: Willan.
59.
ZimringFJohnsonD (2006) Public opinion and the governance of punishment in democratic political systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science605: 265–280.
60.
ZimringFHawkinsGKaminS (2001) Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
