(Penal) populism and experts in the age of the digital crowd wisdom

• Authors: Michalina Szafrańska

Title variants

(Penal) populism and experts in the age of the digital crowd wisdom

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Disregard for scientific facts and knowledge holders has usually been identified as a distinguishing feature of the penal populists’ politics. But is penal populism always anti-intellectual? In this article, I provide some deeper insight into the role of expertise in (penal) populist activity, especially in the context of the currently observed redefinition of expertise (some call it “the death of expertise”) and rapid development of new technologies that enable easy aggregation of citizensʼ collective wisdom. Will crowdlaw-making platforms prevent (penal) populism? Or will they strengthen it by facilitating the justification of radical and unnecessary changes in (criminal) law? Is there a place for traditionally conceived experts and established knowledge in crowdsourced law-making process, and if so, what should be their role?

PL

Disregard for scientific facts and knowledge holders has usually been identified as a distinguishing feature of the penal populists’ politics. But is penal populism always anti-intellectual? In this article, I provide some deeper insight into the role of expertise in (penal) populist activity, especially in the context of the currently observed redefinition of expertise (some call it “the death of expertise”) and rapid development of new technologies that enable easy aggregation of citizensʼ collective wisdom. Will crowdlaw-making platforms prevent (penal) populism? Or will they strengthen it by facilitating the justification of radical and unnecessary changes in (criminal) law? Is there a place for traditionally conceived experts and established knowledge in crowdsourced law-making process, and if so, what should be their role?   Lekceważenie wiedzy eksperckiej oraz jej posiadaczy jest zwykle identyfikowane jako wyróżniająca cecha penalnopopulistycznej polityki. Czy jednak w istocie populizm penalny jest jednoznacznie antyintelektualny? Artykuł jest próbą zaprezentowania roli ekspertyzy w działalności populistów (penalnych) w kontekście obserwowanej obecnie redefinicji ekspertyzy i szybkiego rozwoju nowych technologii, które umożliwiają łatwe agregowanie zbiorowej mądrości obywateli. Czy platformy crowdsourcingowe będą przeciwdziałać (penalnemu) populizmowi? A może raczej wzmocnią go, ułatwiając uzasadnianie radykalnych i niepotrzebnych zmian w prawie (karnym)? Czy crowdsourcing w tworzeniu prawa pozostawia miejsce dla tradycyjnie rozumianych ekspertów i wiedzy naukowej, a jeśli tak, to jaka powinna być ich rola?

Keywords

EN

crowdlaw; crowdsourcing; penal populism; e-participation; law-making

PL

crowdlaw; crowdsourcing; penal populism; e-participation; law-making; populizm penalny; e-partycypacja; tworzenie prawa; crowdlaw; crowdsourcing; penal populism; e-participation; law-making; populizm penalny; e-partycypacja; tworzenie prawa

• Publisher: Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN / Institute of Legal Studies PAN
• Journal: Archiwum Kryminologii
• Year: 2021

Dates

published

2021-10-12

Contributors

author

Michalina Szafrańska

• Jagiellonian University, Department of Sociology of Law

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9389-7352

References

• Abierto al Público (2018). CrowdLaw: How to Design a Public Participation Initiative for Lawmaking, Blogs.iadb.org. Available online: https://blogs.iadb.org/conocimiento-abierto/en/crowdlaw-how-to-design-a-public-participation-initiative-for-lawmaking/ [10.05.2021].
• About FAS (n.d.), Fas.org. Available online: https://fas.org/about-fas/ [10.05.2021].
• Acar O.A. (2018). ‘Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: Money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing.’ Marketing Letters 29, pp. 177–188.
• Aitamurto T., Landemore H., Lee D. and Goel A. (2014). Crowdsourced Off-Road Traffic Law Experiment in Finland: Report About Idea Crowdsourcing and Evaluation. Helsinki: Committee of the Future. Available online: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/naineduskuntatoimii/julkaisut/Documents/tuvj_1+2014.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Alsina V. and Martí J.L. (2018). ‘The birth of the CrowdLaw movement: Tech-based citizen participation, legitimacy and the quality of lawmaking.’ Analyse & Kritik 40(2), pp. 337–358.
• AmCham Taiwan (2017). Participate on Join.gov.tw to Make Taiwan Better, Amcham.com.tw. Available online: https://amcham.com.tw/2017/02/participate-join-gov-tw-make-taiwan-better/ [10.05.2021].
• Babik W. (2014). Ekologia informacji [Information ecology]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
• Bawden D. and Robinson L. (2020). Information Overload: An Introduction. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxfordre.com. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1360 [10.05.2021].
• Bennett W.L., Wells Ch., and Freelon D. (2011). ‘Communicating civic engagement: Contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere.’ Journal of Communication 61(5), pp. 835–856.
• Berk C.D. (2021). ‘Must penal law be insulated from public influence?.’ Law and Philos 40(1), pp. 67–87.
• Bland T.B. (2020). Predators and Principles: Think Tank Influence, Media Visibility, and Political Partisanship. Virginia Commonwealth University. Available online: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/6344/ [10.05.2021].
• Bottoms A.E. (1995). ‘The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing.’ In C. Clarkson and R. Morgan (eds.) The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 17–49.
• Canovan M. (1981). Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
• Canovan M. (1999). ‘Trust the people: Populism and the two faces of democracy.’ Political Studies 47(1), pp. 2–16.
• Canovan M. (2002). ‘Taking politics to the people: Populism as the ideology of democracy.’ In Y. Mény and Y. Surel (eds.) Democracies and the Populist Challenge. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–44.
• Capone G. and Noveck B. (2017). CrowdLaw: Online Public Participation in Lawmaking, Crowd.law. Available online: https://crowd.law/crowdlaw-model-legislation-annotated-30f864593e2 [10.05.2021].
• Chadwick A. (2009). ‘Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance.’ I/S: Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 4(3), pp. 9–42.
• Czapska J. (2008). ‘Public discourse in creating criminal policy.’ In T. Biernat and M. Zirk-Sadowski (eds.) Politics of Law and Legal Policy. Between Modern and Post-Modern Jurisprudence. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 230–257.
• Dahl R.A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Duggan M. and Smith A. (2016). The Political Environment on Social Media, Pewresearch.org. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/10/PI_2016.10.25_Politics-and-Social-Media_FINAL.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Dzur A.W. and Mirchandani R. (2007). ‘Punishment and democracy: The role of public deliberation.’ Punishment & Society 9(2), pp. 151–175.
• Friess D. and Eilders C. (2015). ‘A systematic review of online deliberation research.’ Policy & Internet 7(3), pp. 319–339.
• Governence Lab (2021). The Power of Virtual Communities. The GovLab. Available online: https://virtual-communities.thegovlab.org/files/DTR_report_en_EN.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Governence Lab (n.d.). CrowdLaw Catalog, Catalog.crowd.law. Available online: https://catalog.crowd.law/ [10.05.2021].
• Goyanes M., Borah P., and Zúñiga H.G. de (2021). ʻSocial media filtering and democracy: Effects of social media news use and uncivil political discussions on social media unfriending.ʼ Computers in Human Behavior 120, pp. 1–9.
• Grazian F. and Nahr H. (2020). Next Level Participation: Citizen-Driven E-Democracy Tools. European Liberal Forum. Available online: https://ecas.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Next-level-participation_0302_fin.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Hassan L. and Hamari J. (2020). ʻGameful civic engagement: A review of the literature on gamification of e-participation.ʼ Government Information Quarterly 37(3), pp. 1–21.
• Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (2016). The Constitutional Crisis in Poland 2015-2016. Warsaw: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Available online: https://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/HFHR_The-constitutional-crisis-in-Poland-2015-2016.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Hierlemann D. and Roch S. (2020). Digital participation in Taiwan. Takeaways for Europe. Participo, Medium.com. Available online: https://medium.com/participo/renewing-democracy-in-an-age-of-complexity-and-disillusionment-70942a6a3ee9 [10.05.2021].
• Horton Ch. (2018). The Simple But Ingenious System Taiwan Uses to Crowdsource Its Laws, Technologyreview.com. Available online: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/08/21/240284/the-simple-but-ingenious-system-taiwan-uses-to-crowdsource-its-laws/ [10.05.2021].
• Jankowski N.W. and Os R. van (2004). ‘Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in Hoogeveen.’ In P.M. Shane (ed.) Democracy Online: The Prospect for Political Renewal Through the Internet. London: Routledge, pp. 181–194.
• Janssen D. and Kies R. (2005). ‘Online forums and deliberative democracy.’ Acta Politica 40(3), pp. 317–335.
• Jensen M.J. (2003). ‘Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians.’ Information Polity 8(1–2), pp. 29–47.
• Johnson L.M., Elam P., Lebold S.M., and Burroughs R. (2018). ‘Use of research evidence by criminal justice professionals.’ Justice Policy Journal 16(2), pp. 1–23.
• Johnstone G. (2000). ‘Penal policy making. Elitist, populist or participatory?.’ Punishment & Society 2(2), pp. 161–180.
• Joński K. and Rogowski W. (2020). ‘Legislative practice and the ‘judiciary reforms’ in post-2015 Poland – analysis of the law-making process.’ International Journal for Court Administration 11(2), pp. 3–12.
• Kavanagh J. and Rich M.D. (2018). Truth Decay. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
• Keen A. (2007). The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday.
• Kemeny R. (2020). Brazil Is Sliding into Techno-Authoritarianism, Technologyreview.com. Available online: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/19/1007094/brazil-bolsonaro-data-privacy-cadastro-base/ [10.05.2021].
• Kim J. (2006). ‘The impact of Internet use patterns on political engagement: A focus on online deliberation and virtual social capital.’ Information Polity 11(1), pp. 35–49.
• Kireyev P. (2020). ‘Markets for ideas: Prize structure, entry limits, and the design of ideation contests.’ The RAND Journal of Economics 51, pp. 563–588.
• Konopacki M., Albu D., Cerqueira D., and Tavares T.G. (2020). ‘Mudamos: A mobile app to ignite an integrated engagement framework.’ In M.P. Rodríguez Bolívar and M.E. Cortés Cediel (eds.) Digital Government and Achieving E-Public Participation: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 184–205.
• Loader B.D., Vromen A., and Xenos M.A. (2014). ‘The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement.’ Information, Communication & Society 17(2), pp. 143–150.
• Moore G., Redman S., Rudge S., and Haynes A. (2018). Do Policy-Makers Find Commissioned Rapid Reviews Useful?. Health Research Policy and Systems. Available online: https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0293-1 [30.07.2021].
• Mudde C. (2004). ʻThe populist zeitgeist.ʼ Government and Opposition 39(4), pp. 541–563.
• Nichols T. (2017). The Death of Expertise. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Noveck B.S. (2018). ‘Crowdlaw: Collective intelligence and lawmaking.’ Analyse & Kritik 40(2), pp. 359–380.
• Noveck B.S., Dinesh A., Rivera Muńozcano B., Gambrell D., Joerger G., Gimeno E., Konopacki M., Ryan M., Kornberg M., Harvey R., DeJohn S., and Alsina V. (2020). Crowdlaw for Congress. Strategies for 21st Century Lawmaking. The GovLab. Available online: https://congress.crowd.law/files/crowdlaw_playbook_Oct2020.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Papacharissi Z. (2004). ‘Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups.’ New Media & Society 6(2), pp. 259–283.
• Pratt J. (2007). Penal Populism. New York: Routledge.
• Pratt J. and Clark M. (2005). ‘Penal populism in New Zealand.’ Punishment & Society 7(3), pp. 303–322.
• Pratt J. and Miao M. (2017). Penal Populism: The End of Reason. Working Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312594772 [10.05.2021].
• Rich A. (2004). Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Roberts J.V., Stalans L.J., Indermaur D., and Hough M. (2003). Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Root J. (2015). How Do We Maximize and Sustain Participation in the #CrowdLaw Process?, The GovLab. Availiable online: https://blog.thegovlab.org/post/how-do-we-maximize-and-sustain-participation-in-the-crowdlaw-process [10.05.2021].
• Rowe I. (2015). ‘Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion.ʼ Information, Communication & Society 18(2), pp. 121–138.
• Roy J. (2012). ‘Social media's democratic paradox: Lessons from Canada.’ European Journal of ePractice 16, pp. 5–15.
• Sgueo G. (2020). Digital Democracy: Is the Future of Civic Engagement Online?. Brussels: European Parliament. Available online: http://www.gianlucasgueo.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Practice-of-Democracy.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Shammas V.L. (2020). ʻPenal elitism: Anatomy of a professorial ideology.ʼ Critical Criminology 28, pp. 759–774.
• Shils E.A. (1956). The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
• Simon J., Bass T., Boelman V., and Mulgan G. (2017). Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement. London: Nesta.
• Stefan Batory Foundation (2019). Ustawa w 2 godziny 20 minut. XIII Komunikat Obywatelskiego Forum Legislacji podsumowujący aktywność legislacyjną rządów Zjednoczonej Prawicy, Sejmu VIII kadencji i Senatu IX kadencji (2015–2019) [Law in 2 hours and 20 minutes. XIII Report of the Citizens' Legislation Forum Summarizing the Legislative Activity of the Government of the United Right, the Sejm of the 8th Term and the Senate of the 9th Term (2015-2019)]. Available online: https://www.batory.org.pl/upload/files/Programy%20operacyjne/Forum%20Idei/Komunikat_2019-1.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Stone D. (2013). Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private–Public Policy Nexus in the Global Agora. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Szafrańska M. (2013). ‘Penal populism as a manifestation of the neutralization of values in penal law.’ In K. Pałecki (ed.) Neutralization of Values in Law. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 266–300.
• Szafrańska M. (2015). Penalny populizm a media [Penal populism and the media]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
• Szpunar M. (2012). Nowe-stare medium [The new-old media]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFIS PAN.
• Taggart P. (2000). Populism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Taggart P. (2002). ‘Populism and the pathology of representative politics.’ In Y. Mény and Y. Surel (eds.) Democracies and the Populist Challenge. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 62–80.
• The CrowdLaw Manifesto (n.d.), Manifesto.crowd.law. Available online: https://manifesto.crowd.law/ [10.05.2021].
• Turner L. (2014). ‘Penal populism, deliberative methods, and the production of “public opinion” on crime and punishment.’ The Good Society 23(1), pp. 87–102.
• Twiplomacy (2020). Twiplomacy Study 2020. Available online: https://twiplomacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Twiplomacy-Study-2020.pdf [10.05.2021].
• Ward V., House A., and Hamer S. (2009). ‘Knowledge brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain?.’ Evidence & Policy 5(3), pp. 267–279.
• Wei-chi Ch. and Chung J. (2020). New Traffic Rules Target Drunk Drivers, Taipei Times. Available online: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2020/03/01/2003731854 [10.05.2021].
• Wiles P. (1969). ‘A syndrome, not a doctrine: Some elementary theses on populism.’ In G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (eds.) Populism: Its Meaning and National Characteristics. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, pp. 166–179.
• Wise K., Hamman B., and Thorson K. (2006). ‘Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate.’ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(1), pp. 24–41.
• Wodak R. (2015). The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage.
• Zain A. (2019). ‘Rise of modi’s tech-populism in India.’ Journal of Cultural Studies 6(1), pp. 199–208.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7420/AK2021.18