mopdf.com

List of ContributorsCormac BehanLynsey BlackLouise BranganFiachra ByrneLinda ConnollyCatherine CoxDavid M. DoyleDiarmuid GriffinDeirdre HealyLouise KennefickMuiread MurphyLiam O’CallaghanIan O’DonnellKatherine O’DonnellMaeve O’RourkeEoin O’SullivanChristina QuinlanMary RoganTechnological University Dublin, IrelandMaynooth University, IrelandUniversity of Strathclyde, UKDepartment of Justice, IrelandMaynooth University, IrelandUniversity College Dublin, IrelandMaynooth University, IrelandNational University of Ireland, IrelandUniversity College Dublin, IrelandUniversity of Glasgow, UKMaynooth University, IrelandLiverpool Hope University, UKUniversity College Dublin, IrelandUniversity College Dublin, IrelandNational University of Ireland, IrelandTrinity College Dublin, IrelandTU Dublin, IrelandTrinity College Dublin, Ireland

This page intentionally left blank

ForewordKerry Carrington and Máximo SozzoThe Republic of Ireland which de-shackled itself from British colonial rule in1922 is largely absent from Anglophone criminology. The persistent exclusion ofIreland in criminological knowledge about punishment and social control is linkedto a global hierarchy that privileges knowledge produced by the universities fromthe former imperial powers that once colonised about nine-tenths of the world,Britain and America (Connell, 2007). In southern theory, the south is a metaphorfor this epistemic injustice. Ireland’s rural, agrarian nature and deep links betweenCatholicism and the State do not fit with the foundational origin concepts withincriminological theory. In this sense, the absence and silencing of Irish criminologyis an enclave of the south within the north, as a former British colony.This book contributes to the southernising of criminology and democratisation of knowledge (Carrington et al., 2016). It does this by resurrecting historiesof punishment and social control peculiar to the modes of state and religioussocial control of the Irish Republic, absent from Anglophone criminology, suchas gender, postcoloniality, religion, rurality and carcerality beyond the criminaljustice system. The edited collection maps these rich and diverse histories of punishment and in so doing unsettles accepted criminological wisdoms about massincarceration and punitive law and order discourses in England and the UnitedStates as the chief forms of social control in the twentieth century.It does this by mapping the distinct ways punishment operated beyond andoutside criminal justice, such as through systems of probation influenced byCatholicism and its use of charities and volunteers. It also examines the emergence of Irish custodial institutions in the 1950s and 1960s responsible for theendemic institutional abuses of Irish children in the Industrial and Reformatory Schools, again many of which were run by Catholic religious orders. Thecollection also shines a light on what O’Donnell and O’Sullivan term ‘coerciveconfinement’ outside the criminal justice system, including involuntary detention in psychiatric hospitals, confinement in Magdalene institutions and Motherand Baby Homes, and detention in Industrial and Reformatory schools. Magdalene Laundries in Ireland were state funded but church run. They were places ofmisogynous ‘coercive confinement’ where nuns sought to rescue ‘impure’ women,through punishing regimes of patronising and stigmatising social control,exploitation and abuse. These abuses were the subject of three key inquiries heldbetween 1999 and 2021, into Industrial and Reformatory Schools, MagdaleneLaundries, and Mother and Baby Homes. However research into the archives ofthese inquires published in this book argues that much about those inquiries was

xviForewordand remains secret and those abused in these institutions have never been grantedtheir human rights.Another set of chapters unsettle and re-think crime and punishment. The central argument is that instead of seeing Irish/Hibernian criminology as exceptional,the aim is to create an Hibernian epistemology that recognises both the need tocraft bespoke theory while also contributing to wider international debates aboutthe sociology of punishment and history of crime. For example the Irish deathpenalty was initially shaped by the country’s colonialist origins, but over the century this changed to reflect Ireland’s growing confidence and stature on the worldstage, as a nation in its own right. Some of the authors explicitly use a SouthernCriminology framework to (re)construct the historical narratives around prisoners’ rights movements, by including perspectives from marginalised voices, bringing the ‘other’, the marginal, the invisible and subaltern to the centre.The compendium offers particular insight about reinserting the role of womenin the revolution and fight for independence from Britain, a much overlookedtopic in male-stream history, and exploring the punishment and violence againstwomen in the revolutionary period between 1919 and 1923. A complimentarycomplementary chapter interrogates the experiences of women’s incarcerationfrom the revolution to the Irish Free State and the Irish Republic. It makes acompelling argument that their experiences mirrored Ireland’s history of colonialism, war, revolution and political activism, all very much shaped by discoursesof masculinism, militarism and Catholicism.What this book illustrates is that Irish criminology, while a relatively newlyrecognised discipline, has become a distinctly historical inquiry into the practicesand genealogies of punishment in the past and the present. By using a southernand historical framework, the multidisciplinary collection aims to address gaps,and open up dialogue with the wider debates in the sociology of punishmentand historical criminology from the vantage point of a formerly colonised islandin the Global North. It makes an outstanding and original contribution to thesouthernizing of criminology as well as historical criminology. We are delightedto publish this original book of essays on the Histories of Punishment and SocialControl in Ireland, in our Emerald book series and commend it to you.

AcknowledgementsThis volume was first imagined at the 2018 meeting of the Law and Society Association in Toronto. In the sunshine of a rooftop bar, conversations were had whichled eventually here, to this collection and to what we hope becomes a contributionto a dialogue on penal history, punishment and society, and the production ofcriminological knowledge.We are hugely grateful to all those authors gathered in this book, who surprised us by saying yes to our initial invitations to be part of the project. We arethrilled to see, collected here for the first time, those scholars who have shapedour own work and contributed so significantly to the discipline of criminology inIreland and to the literature on the histories of punishment and social control. Weare also thankful to Sindy Joyce for her support of the project and participationin a workshop which was held in the autumn of 2020.We would like to express our thanks to the editorial Team at Emerald Publishing, particularly Katy Mathers and Hazel Goodes, who made the process enjoyable and straightforward.Finally, we are hugely grateful to the series editors, Kerry Carrington and Máximo Sozzo, who recognised the contribution such a volume could make in takinga critical lens to what we mean by Anglophone criminology, and the significanceof Irish penality to the project of rethinking, de-colonising and southernisingcriminological knowledge production. As we note in the Introduction, this maybe a neat volume, but we hope it offers an alternative tangent of consideration.

This page intentionally left blank

IntroductionLouise Brangan, Lynsey Black and Deirdre HealyThis collection concerns Irish penality across the twentieth century. How weretechniques of confinement and social control organised? What, if anything, wasdistinctive about the Republic of Ireland’s penal forms and functions? Whichpolitical, social and cultural forces help us explain and understand Irish penalitysince the foundation of the State in 1922 and its subsequent transformations?And why does any of this matter – how might the wider field of penology and historical criminology benefit from possessing a fuller view of these issues? It is precisely these historical and theoretical questions that this volume seeks to address.As we will map out below, due to the conditions of its emergence, the study ofpunishment in Ireland has formed a strong historical orientation. The contributors whom we have brought together in this volume are the leading scholars inthis area, and it is not an overstatement to say many of them have set the agendafor the Irish criminology community. Within this collection, their chapters provide a panoramic view of the main themes and debates that give Irish penal history its regional distinction, namely a strong focus on policy and government, aswell as an impressively multifaceted conception of punishment and social control. The Irish understanding of penal culture is distinguished by its committedinterest in history and for its focus on punishment within as well as beyond thecriminal justice system. With that in mind, this collection seems timely and useful, providing a volume that collects the various accounts and debates within Irishhistorical punishment and society studies in one place, for the first time. Drawingtogether the intellectual threads across these works also reinforces the importanceof research from places that often escape criminology’s sometimes imperial gaze.We need richer histories of punishment that are inclusive of a great many morepractices and penal cultures than we tend to see in the narrow canon of criminology. As will become apparent, distinction and difference have become key termsthat so often describe both Irish criminology and Irish penality. This identity iscompounded by Ireland’s frequent absence within Anglophone and Europeancriminology. We contend that Ireland’s position as a persistent outlier speaks tobigger critical concerns about the politics of criminological knowledge production. In bringing together these chapters we are also interested in southernisingcriminology (Carrington et al., 2018), and believe that history, and Irish penalhistory in particular, can make an important contribution towards democratisingHistories of Punishment and Social Control in Ireland: Perspectives from a Periphery, 1–15Copyright 2022 by Emerald Publishing LimitedAll rights of reproduction in any form reserveddoi:10.1108/978-1-80043-606-020221002

2Louise Brangan et al.social studies of penality. We argue that if punishment and society is to be moreinclusive then it will also need to diversify its historical imagination, which to datehas been dominated by concerns of law and order, punitive penal transformationand mass incarceration in England and the United States. However, the dynamics of Irish punishment and penal change across the twentieth century unsettlemainstream views of Anglophone penal history (Kilcommins et al., 2004; Rogan,2011). If we are interested in de-centring the English-speaking metropole andhow the histories of England and the United States have dominated the field, thenIrish penal history can challenge the knowledge inequalities embedded within thediscipline, and help develop a new pedagogy of penality.The History of Irish Criminology and the Rise of HistoricalPenalityHow might criminology as a field of scholarship look, what sorts of interestsmight it pursue, if it had not emerged from the forces of nineteenth century scientific modernism? What matters would consume criminology if it had not beenmoulded and remoulded by the rise and fall of social democracy and neoliberalism in the twentieth century? This may seem hard to imagine, given that theseevents are central to criminology’s origin story (Carrington and Hogg, 2017;Garland and Sparks, 2000). The Republic of Ireland provides exactly this kindof peculiar case, however, where criminology was only formally institutionalisedas an academic discipline in 2000 (O’Donnell, 2005). Criminology in Ireland is,therefore, not simply another branch of English-language criminology. Whilecriminological inquiry had been carried out prior to this watershed, it rarelyoccurred within a recognisably criminological space.This peculiar (for this region of the world, at least) emergence of criminologyas a product of the new millennium has seen criminology frequently described asthe nation’s ‘absentee discipline’ (Kilcommins et al., 2004; O’Donnell, 2005). Thatis certainly no longer the case. But the contemporary flourishing of Irish criminology quickly gave rise to a discipline without a canon of texts. The absence oftouchstone Irish criminological studies may explain how our inquiries came to beinflected with such pronounced historical sensibilities. Arguably, what now givesIrish criminology its distinctive character is its tendency to investigate the past.The pursuit of historical knowledge is thriving within Irish punishment scholarship, such that, arguably, it is a leading area of study for Irish criminologists.These investigations have raised questions about how and why we punished as wedid in Ireland, they contain qualitative and quantitative works, they encompassboth social theory and social history, they study history for its own sake, and theycompel us to trace the genealogy of the past in our penal practices today.While penal transformation has been a mainstream interest in punishment andsociety (Garland, 2001; Pratt et al, 2005; Simon, 2007; Wacquant, 2009), theseaccounts tend to discuss history using broad generalisations and ‘straw versionsof the past’, lacking an historical sociology that can illuminate culture and context with meaningful depth (Loader and Sparks 2004, p. 14). How can we reallyknow anything about how we have come to be without knowing how we were in

Introduction3the past? How would a fuller grasp of history alter our understandings of thepresent? Taking the past seriously can also revise our histories. A more ‘quizzical historical sensibility’ (Loader and Sparks 2004, p. 15) may reveal integral butoverlooked structures, values, events and conflicts that shaped and reshaped oursystems of social control and penal power.What does it entail to think and research penality historically and critically?There are certainly no easy answers or agreed approaches, but addressing thehistorical lacuna in our criminological imagination and toolkits requires a moreadvanced historical approach than has sometimes been acknowledged (Loaderand Sparks 2004, p. 9). Recognising this, ‘historical criminology’ has recentlyemerged as a burgeoning subdiscipline, and discussions of what historical criminology can achieve and contribute are becoming part of the mainstream discourse(Churchill et al., 2022; Lawrence, 2019). While the emergence of this approach inrecent years has been pronounced, this has been a long-term project with pioneerssuch as Bosworth (2000, 2001) demonstrating the necessity for historical methodologies to deepen our understandings of penality. From the beginning, however,Irish criminologists accepted and reflected on how our comprehension of the pastsupports the legibility of the present. Given the depth and maturity of historicalstudies in Irish criminology, the works here might be particularly well positionedto contribute to these debates about historical sociology of punishment and penaltransformation.What is distinctive about the historical contribution across these chapters isthat they are each interested in recovery, retrieving from the annals of time whathas become forgotten or dismissed as inconsequential. But being forgotten andoverlooked is often a matter of politics, so our histories also speak to present-dayconcerns. As E.P. Thompson told us, doing history with a critical sensibility is asmuch a matter of doing justice to the past by ‘rescuing’ disregarded communities and marginalised cultures ‘from the enormous condescension of posterity’(Thompson, 2013). Historical criminology (like history itself) therefore balancesthe tensions between authentic description of times gone by and a commitment togenerate new ways to understand contemporary problems. Scholarship groundedin the past can trouble conventional wisdoms about how things happened andquestion contemporary orthodoxy. Historical penality can challenge a tendencytowards ‘presentism’ within criminology (Farrall et al., 2009; Yeomans, 2019),highlighting some of the many penal practices that go overlooked in punishmentand society’s general issues and debates. History in this vein can tell us more thanjust how punishment operated and how it has changed, it can be a critical lens toreassess the dynamics of the discipline itself.Southernising CriminologyThe scope and ambition of our project is not limited to historical recovery, therefore. That we are interested in these matters of penal history in relation to Irelandis also of theoretical importance. It is now apparent that an alternative paradigmis taking hold within criminology, as many conventional claims and theoreticaltouchstones are being re-read, re-considered and at times challenged for their

4Louise Brangan et al.ethnocentricity (Aas, 2012; Carrington et al., 2016; Lee and Laidler, 2013; Liu,2009). Southern criminology, like Southern theory, has exposed the very limitedgeographical, situational and historical moments, and places from which punishment and society has derived its mainstream, and hence globally significant,theories.Using southern theory, southern criminology has been devised to illuminateprecisely this process, exposing ‘the power relations embedded in the hierarchalproduction of criminological knowledge that privileges theories, assumptionsand methods based largely on empirical specificities of the global North’ (Carrington et al., 2016, p. 1). The theoretical trends and hot topics that have grippedpunishment and society since its more fulsome formulation as a discrete area inthe 1990s (though of course the social study of punishment predates this, seeSimon and Sparks, 2013) reveals that it has been attracted to the turmoil of thepunitive turn in England and the United States in the second half of the twentieth century. Trying to interpret and explain the vitriol of law and order politics,penal populist soundbites, as well as the driving forces behind mass imprisonment has, by and large, occupied the discipline. But these problems are not generaland have not been experienced everywhere equally, or at all. Yet the theories andideas that concern explicitly Anglo-American penal problems have taken on aninternational sense of significance. Many of our most popular theories, binaryconceptualisations and taken-for-granted research concerns – such as punitiveness and exceptionalism – are ‘Anglocentric formations’ (Brangan, 2020). With anassumed universalism, these concepts go on to be exported (as well as imported)and implanted to places, often at the periphery, where these ideas do not necessarily fit, let alone work (Connell, 2015). This becomes problematic when penalityat the periphery is subsequently and repeatedly ‘read from the centre’ (Connell,2006), where we find ourselves unable to name, understand and on occasion evensee ‘the various forms of confinement around the world which

Louise Brangan 141 Chapter 7 Capital Punishment and Postcolonialism in Ireland Lynsey Black 163 Chapter 8: The Ultimate Sacrifice: Irish Police (Gardaí) Murdered in the Line of Duty, 1922-2020 Liam O'Callaghan, David M. Doyle, Diarmuid Griffin and Muiread Murphy 187 Chapter 9: Gender, Punishment and Violence in Ireland's