This article explores governing through rights in a penal context by analyzing a recent case before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (the “Court” or “Supreme Court”), Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland et al. (UKSC 2017 ). The case involved a prisoner whose stay in prison was extended by several years beyond what the trial court ordered because he was unable to access offender behavior courses due to staffing shortages and waiting lists. In rejecting this as an arbitrary detention (in violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the Supreme Court focused on the prisoner’s behavior as a justification for non-release. This article traces how the Court applied concepts of rehabilitation and sentence progression to shift focus from the state’s compliance with its rights duties to the prisoner’s deservingness of rights protection. Using frameworks of governmentality and structural violence, I explore how administrative processes, such as sentence management and rights litigation, facilitate and constitute prison violence. Specifically, rehabilitation provided the means of constructing the petitioner as a disobedient and undeserving subject, while simultaneously valorizing the penal authorities’ enlightened oversight of his sentence. Through such moves, the Court and, by extension, legal institutions, can inflict violence in three ways: first, by legitimating the extension of confinement using tools aimed at limiting detention; second, by imposing material and psychic burdens in the pursuit of legal claims, creating both hope and the basis of destroying it; and third, by obscuring and denying the disordered and inherently violent nature of the experience of imprisonment. The article seeks to expose how bureaucratic logics (like balancing tests), spaces (like appeal courts), and material practices (as in the temporal organization of “background facts” in legal judgments) are part of prison and the violence which characterizes the prison experience.

中文翻译：

---

权利风险：改造、刑期管理和监狱的结构性暴力

本文通过分析英国最高法院（“法院”或“最高法院”）最近审理的一起案件，Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland 等人的案件，探讨了在刑事背景下通过权利进行治理。(UKSC 2017)。该案件涉及一名囚犯，由于人员短缺和等候名单，他无法参加罪犯行为课程，因此他的监狱逗留时间比初审法院的命令延长了几年。最高法院驳回这是任意拘留（违反《欧洲人权公约》第 5 条），将囚犯的行为作为不释放的理由。这篇文章追溯了法院如何运用改造和递进的概念将焦点从国家遵守其权利义务转移到囚犯应得的权利保护上。使用政府性和结构性暴力的框架，我探讨了行政程序，如判决管理和权利诉讼，如何促进和构成监狱暴力。具体而言，改过自新提供了将请愿人塑造为不听话和不值得的主体的手段，同时也使刑事当局对他的判决进行开明的监督。通过这些举措，法院以及法律机构可以通过三种方式施加暴力：首先，通过使用旨在限制拘留的工具使延长监禁合法化；第二，通过在追求法律要求时施加物质和精神负担，创造希望和摧毁它的基础；第三，通过掩盖和否认监禁经历的无序和内在暴力性质。这篇文章试图揭示官僚逻辑（如平衡测试）、空间（如上诉法院）和物质实践（如法律判决中“背景事实”的时间组织）如何成为监狱的一部分以及监狱特征的暴力经验。