remaining objective but also human (p. 31). There is a tendency however for the author to accept at face value what she is told and I found some of the accounts given unconvincing. Perhaps this reflects my own lack of understanding of the researcher’s role, but from a practitioners point of view, I was uncomfortable about the lack of challenge to what the author was sometimes being told. The clearest example of this was the following: ‘The intent to persist in offending was not always deliberate. In fact, only two individuals in the sample expressed a strong commitment to reoffend, which highlights that a very small proportion of prisoners maintain a conscious intent to harm’ (p. 154.). I would also have been interested to know how the author as researcher, dealt with the ethical dilemma, when one of the participants reported having ‘consensual’ sexual relations with a female officer (p. 45). Kazemian is illuminating about some of the distinctive cultural and historical characteristics of the French criminal justice system. For example, ‘in order to ensure equality before the law’ (p. 18), the French government refrains from publishing official prison statistics on diversity, an omission that seems shocking at a distance. Kazemian points out that the unintended consequence of this is that it ‘prevents the detection of discriminatory treatment on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion’ (p. 18). She also usefully discusses the mixed results on the use of conjugal visits and makes interesting comments about the role of financial restitution. The French Prison Study is a largely self-reported account of the experience of long-term prisoners, both during custody and post release, its strength is that it provides some of these individuals with a voice that would otherwise remain unheard. The theoretical and methodological material covered will be of value and interest to academics and perhaps policy makers, but probably less so for practitioners.

中文翻译：

---

书评：面对惩罚过度：惩罚和极简主义的政治

保持客观，但也是人性的（第 31 页）。然而，作者倾向于从表面上接受她被告知的内容，我发现其中的一些叙述没有说服力。也许这反映了我自己对研究人员角色的缺乏了解，但从从业者的角度来看，我对作者有时被告知的内容缺乏挑战感到不舒服。最明显的例子如下：“坚持冒犯的意图并不总是故意的。事实上，样本中只有两个人表达了重新犯罪的强烈承诺，这凸显了极少数囚犯保持有意识的伤害意图'（第 154 页）。我也很想知道作者作为研究人员如何处理道德困境，当其中一名参与者报告与一名女警官发生“双方同意”的性关系时（第 45 页）。Kazemian 阐明了法国刑事司法系统的一些独特的文化和历史特征。例如，“为了确保法律面前人人平等”（第 18 页），法国政府避免发布关于多样性的官方监狱统计数据，这一遗漏在远处似乎令人震惊。Kazemian 指出，这样做的意外后果是“防止发现基于种族、种族或宗教的歧视性待遇”（第 18 页）。她还有益地讨论了使用夫妻探访的混合结果，并就经济补偿的作用提出了有趣的评论。法国监狱研究主要是自我报告的长期囚犯在拘留期间和释放后的经历，其优势在于它为这些人中的一些人提供了否则将不被听到的声音。所涵盖的理论和方法材料对学术界和政策制定者都具有价值和兴趣，但对从业者来说可能不那么重要。