In recent years, scholars have documented the racial disparities of mass incarceration. In this paper we argue that, although retributivism and deterrence theory appear to be race-neutral, in the contemporary U.S. context these seemingly contrary theories function jointly to rationalize racial inequities in the criminal justice system. When people of color are culturally associated with criminality, they are perceived as both irresponsible and hyperresponsible, a paradox that reflects their status as what Charles Mills calls subpersons. Following from this paradox, criminality is understood as an atemporal characteristic of people of color, such that they are conceived as pre-criminals, criminals, or post-criminals. In Frantz Fanon’s account, overdetermination expresses this exclusion of people of color from full agency by capturing them within a rigid, immutable essence, which then controls the social meaning of their actions. The backward-looking quality of retribution and the forward-looking quality of deterrence then treat people of color as more deserving of punishment (and more severe punishment) and as threats to the social order who have to be restrained. We should read the racialization of mass incarceration as a symptom of how precariously people of color participate in the social contract and as reflections of how theories of punishment have been racially deployed.

近年来，学者们记录了大规模监禁的种族差异。在本文中，我们认为，尽管报复主义和威慑理论似乎是种族中立的，但在当代美国背景下，这些看似相反的理论共同发挥作用，使刑事司法系统中的种族不平等合理化。当有色人种在文化上与犯罪联系在一起时，他们被认为既不负责任又过分负责任，这一悖论反映了他们作为查尔斯·米尔斯所说的亚人的地位。根据这个悖论，犯罪被理解为有色人种的非时间性特征，因此他们被认为是犯罪前的、犯罪的或犯罪后的。在弗朗茨·法农 (Frantz Fanon) 的帐户中，过度决定表达了这种将有色人种排除在完全代理之外的情况，将他们捕获在一种僵化的、不变的本质中，然后控制他们行为的社会意义。报应的后视性质和威慑的前视性质则将有色人种视为更应受到惩罚（和更严厉的惩罚），并视为对社会秩序的威胁，必须加以约束。我们应该将大规模监禁的种族化解读为有色人种参与社会契约不稳定的症状，以及惩罚理论如何在种族上部署的反映。报应的后视性质和威慑的前视性质则将有色人种视为更应受到惩罚（和更严厉的惩罚），并视为对社会秩序的威胁，必须加以约束。我们应该将大规模监禁的种族化解读为有色人种参与社会契约不稳定的症状，以及惩罚理论如何在种族上部署的反映。报应的后视性质和威慑的前视性质则将有色人种视为更应受到惩罚（和更严厉的惩罚），并视为对社会秩序的威胁，必须加以约束。我们应该将大规模监禁的种族化解读为有色人种参与社会契约不稳定的症状，以及惩罚理论如何在种族上部署的反映。