Verdict as a site of social (in)justice: more groundwork for a multivalent approach

Kennefick, L. (2020) Verdict as a site of social (in)justice: more groundwork for a multivalent approach. Howard League for Penal Reform ECAN Bulletin(44), pp. 10-17.

Abstract

This article claims that the bivalent (‘binary’ or ‘two-way’) criminal verdict is a site of social injustice because it results in the misrecognition of the offender collective through a form of status subordination. Its aim is to contribute to the literature that supports a multivalent (‘many-valued’) verdict approach, specifically from the perspective of advancing social justice, and not alone achieving just deserts (for convincing arguments along the latter line see Stephen Morse (2003) and David O. Brink (2019)). In particular, it begins by highlighting the problems pertaining to the binary verdict, before employing a ‘real world’ philosophy methodology to diagnose as an injustice the experience of the relevant collective. Finally, it employs the concept of recognition to inform a social justice response. The article forms part of a larger project which calls for a more humane approach to rendering verdict on both moral and political grounds.

• Item Type: Articles
• Status: Published
• Refereed: Yes
• Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: Kennefick, Dr Louise
• Authors: Kennefick, L.
• College/School: College of Social Sciences > School of Law
• Journal Name: Howard League for Penal Reform ECAN Bulletin
• Publisher: Howard League for Penal Reform