Abstract
Recent years have seen a wide discussion of populism in penal policy, which is internationally regarded as a strong drive for establishing punitive tendencies. Generally, “penal populism” is characterized by an extensive consensus across the most influential political parties, a punitive orientation, and the dismissal of scientific or professional expertise. Recent penal policy therefore appears to be a relatively unified practice strongly oriented toward punitive measures that primarily address the public and its perceived need for protection. Because analyses of Anglophone countries are predominant in this discussion, we contrast them with a reconstruction of debates on youth crime in German parliaments from 1970 to 2012. They exhibit a wide variety of populist articulations. Although they imply a strong punitive bias, they also encompass a very heterogeneous rhetoric of penal policy. In conclusion, we argue that penal populism can (and should) be described as a tactical practice, i.e., as political maneuvering employed to negotiate the prospects of punitive and other styles of politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, German Socialist Unity Party) was the sole governing party of the former GDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, German Democratic Republic). It was founded when the Soviet occupation forcibly unified the KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschland, Communist Party Germany) with the East German SPD in 1946. In the course of Germany’s reunification, it was renamed as PDS (Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus, Party of Democratic Socialism) in 1990, from which the party Die Linke emerged in 2007. Even though other parties did exist during the dictatorship of the SED, they were subordinate to the SED as ‘block parties’ and did not develop their own politics, but were part of the authoritarian apparatus (Wunnicke 2014).
One example is the doubling of the sentencing frame for aggravated assault in 1998 (Dünkel 2011, 221), raised from 3 months with a maximum of five years to 6 months with a maximum of ten years. Also relevant is the expansion of preventive detention as a measure for adults and even in juvenile law since the end of the 1990s (Nix et al. 2011, 119–30). An important example of a (contested) punitive re-orientation of social measures is the development of a so-called “confrontational pedagogy” since the 1990s. This approach rejects the idea that young offenders should be rehabilitated with “soft” measures. Instead, they are to be relentlessly confronted with the suffering of their victims (see Dollinger et al. 2015b for details of the debate). Recently in 2013, the juvenile law was tightened by increasing the maximum length of incarceration for adolescent offenders and expanding options for judges to impose detentions of juvenile offenders (for more detailed analyses of recent developments see Albrecht 2010; Cremer-Schaefer and Steinert 2014; Hassemer 2000; Kury et al. 2009; Trotha 2010; Vormbaum 2004).
In Germany each parliamentary debate and most of the parliamentary proceedings are transcribed and made accessible in parliamentary libraries or, nowadays, on the internet. Additionally, every debate and speech is tagged (and searchable) with the relevant topics that were discussed. For example, the archives for the 10th legislature period in Schleswig-Holstein (1983 to 1987) were searched with the following given registry tags: diebstahl (theft); diversion (diversion); droge (drug); drogenabhängiger (drug addict); drogenhandel (drug-trafficking); drogenmißbrauch (drug abuse); entschädigung für gewaltopfer (indemnity for victims of violence); gefangener (prisoner); gewalt gegen personen (violence against persons); gewalt gegen sachen (violence against objects); gewaltanwendung (application of violence); gewaltopfer (victim of violence); innere sicherheit (internal security); jugendarrest (youth detention); jugendgericht (youth court); jugendgerichtsgesetz (youth courts law); jugendgerichtshilfe (youth courts service); jugendkriminalität (youth crime); jugendstrafanstalt (juvenile prison); jugendstrafrecht (youth penal law); jugendstrafvollzug (juvenile penal system); kinderkriminalität (children’s crime); kriminalität (criminality); kriminalpolizei (criminal investigation department); kriminalpolizeiamt (criminal police bureau); kriminalstatistik (crime statistics); kriminologie (criminology); opferschutz (protection of victims); polizei (police); polizeibeamter (police officer); polizeibehörde (police department); polizeiliche kontrolle (police control); polizeirecht (police law); skinheads (skinheads); straftat (offence); straftäter (offender); strafverfahren (criminal procedure); strafverfolgung (criminal prosecution); strafvollzug (penal system); strafvollzugsgesetz (penal law); suchtbekämpfung (addiction treatment).
For a better understanding of the way we conducted our analyses it seems suitable to give an example. The following quote is a translation of parts of a speech given by SPD-politician Siegfried Kröhn in the parliament of Hamburg in the year 1971: “(…) the wave of drugs is flowing over Germany. (…) it is absolutely correct to say that this wave of marihuana is flowing over the police forces and all over the Federal Republic. But it would miss the point to think that the police could stop this wave of marihuana. It would miss the point to expect something like this from our police. (…) What can be done with the help of the police is to fight the dealers, to unveil the drug cartels (Händlerringe), and to seize the drugs. (…) Not the victims—the small scale consumers—are dangerous for our society, but the ruthless seducers and racketeers (Kröhn, SPD, HH, 1971, 7–29, p. 1465).
Within the scope of the four dimensions his speech can be interpreted as follows:
Nature of the offenses: An almost uncontrollable development in the form of a natural disaster fueled by clandestine working organizations. Urgent need of reaction and measures.
Depiction of juvenile offenders: Seduced young victims vs. despicable and wealth-oriented dealers.
Recommended measures: Tough actions by the police only against drug dealers. Decriminalization of drug users and drug use.
Political self-conception: Drug use is a problem of the whole Federal Republic. Hard to solve for the state of Hamburg alone. Therefore, support from the federal institutions is needed.
Please note that understanding the meaning of most of the symbols in this but also in other speeches is only possible by considering the whole speeches of the respective politicians. For example, the idea of decriminalization of drug users is not inherent to the symbols alone, but must be interpreted from the context and content of the speech by Siegfried Kröhn.
We cite the parliamentary debates with the party of the speaker, the year, the session number of the respective debate, and the page number of the official transcript. The abbreviations of the different parliaments used are BT (Bundestag), BR (Bundesrat), BY (Bavaria), HH (Hamburg), SH (Schleswig-Holstein), and SA (Saxony-Anhalt).
Notwithstanding this notion, an outspoken populist party is currently thriving in Germany (Alternative für Deutschland; alternative for Germany). Its present focus is primarily migration. Consistent with the special and delicate role of populist policies in Germany, the party experiences sharp criticism by other parties and significant parts of the mass media landscape.
Examples of recent electoral campaigns in which candidates running for office utilized punitive rhetoric are the Hamburg election of 2001 and the Hesse election of 2008. In both cases conservative politicians called for tougher laws and the harsher punishment of juvenile repeat offenders with a migrant background (Auslaendische Intensivtaeter). However, the Hamburg campaign of Ronald Schill was only a temporary success—he was dismissed from office only a year later—and the Hesse campaign of the then governing CDU and Roland Koch also failed. To present oneself as a tough crime fighter alone does not—in the German case—suffice to win elections or to stay in office. Yet some successes are possible, as the example of a social democratic campaign of the future Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 1998 has shown (see Dollinger et al. 2015a).
References
Albrecht, G., Backes, O., & Kühnel, W. (Eds.). (2001). Gewaltkriminalität zwischen Mythos und Realität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Albrecht, H.-J. (2002). Ist das deutsche Jugendstrafrecht noch zeitgemäß? München: Beck.
Albrecht, P.-A. (2010). Der Weg in die Sicherheitsgesellschaft. Berlin: BWV.
Ball, K., Haggerty, K. D., & Lyon, D. (Eds.). (2014). Routledge handbook of surveillance studies. London: Routledge.
Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beckett, K., & Western, B. (2001). Governing social marginality: welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy. In D. Garland (Ed.), Mass Imprisonment (pp. 35–50). London: Sage.
Bottoms, A. E. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics sentencing reform (pp. 17–49). Oxford: Clarendon.
Brown, E. K. (2006). The dog that did not bark. Punitive social views and the ‘professional middle class’. In: Punishment & Society, 8, 287–312.
Collins, J. N. (2014). New left experiences in Bolivia and Ecuador and the challenge to theories of populism. Journal of Latin American Studies, 46, 59–86.
Cremer-Schaefer, H., & Steinert, H. (2014). Straflust und repression (2nd ed.). Muenster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1–79.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2011). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 292–344). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dollinger, B. (2012). Das Risiko politischer Steuerung. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 62, 28–34.
Dollinger, B., Lampe, D., Rudolph, M., & Schmidt-Semisch, H. (2015a). Ist die deutsche Kriminalpolitik populistisch? Kriminologisches Journal, 47, 3–21.
Dollinger, B., Rudolph, M., Schmidt-Semisch, H., & Urban, M. (2015b). Von Marionettentheatern und Teufelskreisen. Punitive Entwicklungen der Sozialen Arbeit und Polizei in den vergangenen vier Jahrzehnten. In Kommission Sozialpädagogik (Ed.), Praktiken der Ein- und Ausschließung in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 92–106). Beltz/Juventa: Weinheim.
Dollinger, B., & Schabdach, M. (2013). Jugendkriminalität. Wiesbaden: VS.
Dollinger B and Urban M (2012) Die Analyse von Interdiskursen als Form qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Grundlagen- und Projektbericht am Beispiel Jugendkriminalität. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 13(2). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/rt/printerFriendly/1786/3383 (accessed 08 July 2015).
Downes D and Hansen K (2006) Welfare and punishment. The relationship between welfare spending and imprisonment. Crime and Society. Available at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Welfare_and_Punishment_webversion.pdf (accessed 08 July 2015).
Dünkel, F. (2002). Heranwachsende im Jugendstrafrecht – Erfahrungen in Deutschland und aktuelle Entwicklungen im europäischen Vergleich. In R. Moos, R. Maccacek, R. Miklau, O. Müller, & H. V. Schroll (Eds.), Festschrift für Udo Jesionek (pp. 51–66). Wien: NWV.
Dünkel, F. (2011). Werden Strafen immer härter? In B. Bannenberg & J.-M. Jehle (Eds.), Gewaltdelinquenz, Lange Freiheitsentziehung, Delinquenzverläufe (pp. 209–243). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg.
Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as symbolic action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Enns, P. K. (2014). The Public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the united states. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 857–872.
Fenwick, M. (2013). ‘Penal populism’ and penological change in contemporary Japan. Theoretical Criminology, 17, 215–231.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge & the discourse on language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983). The political culture of welfare policy. In S. E. Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state (pp. 397–415). New York: Academic.
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gerken, J., & Schumann, K. F. (Eds.). (1988). Ein trojanisches Pferd im Rechtsstaat. Der Erziehungsgedanke in der Jugendgerichtspraxis. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.
Graebsch, C. (2010). What works? – Nothing works? – Who cares? “Evidence-based Criminal Policy” und die Realität der Jugendkriminalpolitik. In B. Dollinger & H. Schmidt-Semisch (Eds.), Handbuch Jugendkriminalität (pp. 137–147). VS: Wiesbaden.
Green, D. A. (2007). Comparing penal cultures: child-on-child homicide in England and Norway. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime, punishment, and politics in comparative perspective (crime and justice 36) (pp. 591–643). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Green, D. A. (2008). When children kill children. Penal populism and political culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gusfield, J. R. (1981). The culture of public problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hassemer W (2000) Die neue Lust auf Strafe. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. 16.12.2000: 16.
Heinz W (2001) Die jugendstrafrechtliche Sanktionierungspraxis im Ländervergleich. In: Dölling D (ed) Das Jugendstrafrecht an der Wende zum 21. Jahrhundert. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp 63–97.
Heinz, W. (2012a). Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Sanktionierungspraxis der Jugendkriminalrechtspflege. In DVJJ (Ed.), Achtung (für) Jugend! Praxis und Perspektiven des Jugendkriminalrechts (pp. 513–562). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg.
Heinz W (2012) Das strafrechtliche Sanktionensystem und die Sanktionierungspraxis in Deutschland 1882–2010 (Version: 1/2012). Available at: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis/Sanktionierungspraxis-in-Deutschland-Stand-2010.pdf (access 29 April 2016).
Hutton, N. (2005). Beyond populist punitiveness? Punishment &Society, 7, 243–258.
Jarusch, K. (2012). Reflektionen – Jenseits der nationalen Meistererzählung: Implikationen der Wiedervereinigung fuer die deutsche Zeitgeschichte. In G. Besier (Ed.), 20 Jahre neue Bundesrepublik (pp. 21–46). Münster: Lit.
Jones, R. (2010). Populist leniency, crime control and due process. Theoretical Criminology, 14, 331–347.
Kury, H., Brandenstein, M., & Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2009). Dimensions of punitiveness in Germany. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 63–81.
Kury, H., & Ferdinand, T. N. (Eds.). (2008). International perspectives on punitivity. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Lacey, N. (2012). Punishment in the perspective of comparative political economy. Kriminologisches Journal, 44, 9–31.
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.
Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2010). Vertrauen, Wohlfahrt und politikwissenschaftliche Aspekte – International vergleichende Perspektiven zur Punitivität. In F. Dünkel, T. Lappi-Seppälä, C. Morgenstern, & S. D. van Zyl (Eds.), Kriminalität, Kriminalpolitik, strafrechtliche Sanktionspraxis und Gefangenenraten im europäischen Vergleich (pp. 937–996). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag.
Link, J. (1989). Collective symbolism in political discourse and its share in underlying totalitarian trends. In R. Schürmann (Ed.), The Public realm. Essays on discursive types in political philosophy (pp. 225–238). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Linssen, R. (2003). Gewalt im Jugendalter – Stereotypen in den Medien. Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 23, 147–164.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4, 124–147.
Luhmann N (1997/2012) Theory of society. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Matthews, R. (2005). The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology, 9, 175–201.
Melossi, D. (2008). Controlling crime, controlling society. Cambridge: Polity.
Nix, C., Möller, W., & Schütz, C. (2011). Einführung in das Jugendstrafrecht für die Soziale Arbeit. München: Reinhardt.
Nix, C., Möller, W., & Schütz, C. (2011). Einführung in das Jugendstrafrecht für die Soziale Arbeit. München: Reinhardt.
Oelkers, N., & Ziegler, H. (2009). Punitivitaet, Verantwortung und Soziale Arbeit. Zeitschrift fuer Jugendkriminalrecht und Jugendhilfe, 20, 38–44.
Ostendorf, H. (2016). Jugendstrafrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Ozan, D. (2010). Parteiliche Kommunikation am politischen Wendepunkt. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Pieplow, L. (1989). Erziehung als Chiffre. In M. Walter (Ed.), Beitrage zur Erziehung im Jugendkriminalrecht (pp. 5–57). Carl Heymanns: Köln.
Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., & Gordon, J. A. (2010). Never too late. Public optimism about juvenile rehabilitation. In: Punishment & Society, 12, 187–207.
Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. London: Routledge.
Reuband K-H (2010) Einstellungen der Bevölkerung gegenüber jugendlichen Straftätern. Eine empirische Analyse ihrer Erscheinungsformen und Determinanten. In: Dollinger B and Schmidt-Semisch H (eds) Handbuch Jugendkriminalität. Wiesbaden, pp. 507–531.
Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sack, F. (2013). Social structure and crime policy: the German case. Punishment & Society, 15, 367–381.
Savelsberg, J. J. (1994). Knowledge, domination, and criminal punishment. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 911–943.
Schlepper, C. (2014). Strafgesetzgebung in der Spätmoderne. Wiesbaden: VS.
Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steinert, H., 1999: Kulturindustrielle Politik mit dem Großen & Ganzen: Populismus, Politik-Darsteller, ihr Publikum und seine Mobilisierung. Available at: http://www.fes.de/ipg/ipg4_99/ARTSTEINERT.PDF (accessed 03 Aug 2016).
Sutton, J. R. (2004). The Political Economy of Imprisonment in Affluent Western Democracies, 1960–1990. American Sociological Review, 69, 170–189.
Tonry, M. (2004). Why Aren’t German penal policies harsher and imprisonment rates higher? German Law Journal, 5, 1187–1206.
Tonry, M. (2013). Evidence, ideology, and politics in the making of American criminal justice policy. Crime and Justice, 42, 1–18.
Trotha, T. (2010). Die präventive Sicherheitsordnung. Kriminologisches Journal, 42, 24–40.
Vormbaum, T. (2004). 130 Jahre Strafgesetzgebung. Markierungspunkte und Tendenzen. In T. Vormbaum & J. Welp (Eds.), Das Strafgesetzbuch. Supplement vol. 1:130 Jahre Strafgesetzgebung – eine Bilanz (pp. 456–489). Berlin: BWV.
Wagner, W. (2006). Qualitivate Inhaltsanalyse: Die soziale Konstruktion sicherheitspolitischer Interessen in Deutschland und Großbritannien. In A. Siedschlag (Ed.), Methoden der sicherheitspolitischen Analyse (pp. 169–188). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. London: Sage.
Weber M (1919/2006) Politik als Beruf. In: Weber, M Politik und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Zweitausendeins, pp. 565–610.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: history, agenda, theory and methodolgy. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wunnicke C (2014) Die Blockparteien der DDR. Kontinuitäten und Transformation 1945–1990. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Berliner Landesbeauftragten für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen DDR – vol. 34.
Zeh, W. (1989). Theorie und Praxis der Parlamentsdebatte. In H. P. Schneider & W. Zeh (Eds.), Parlamentsrecht und Parlamentspraxis in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ein Handbuch (pp. 917–937). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dollinger, B., Lampe, D., Rudolph, M. et al. Maneuvering with Crime. An Empirical Reconstruction of “Populist” Stances on Youth Crime in German Parliamentary Debates. Eur J Crim Policy Res 23, 193–210 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9330-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9330-1