- PUNITIVE FEMINISM – A SOLUTION OR A JUSTIFICATION?
In 2015, former glam rock singer Gary Glitter was sentenced to 16 years in prison for serious offences related to historical child sexual abuse. However, what made the case deeply unsettling was that this was not the first time he had been convicted. In 2006, he had been sentenced to three years in prison in Vietnam for child sexual abuse, after which he was deported to the United Kingdom and placed on the sex offenders register [1]. In 2012, he was once again investigated as part of Operation Yewtree [2]—an investigation that exposed sexual abuse cases within the entertainment industry [3]. Nevertheless, by 2015, further investigation had uncovered additional offences, leading to a much harsher sentence. This raised serious questions about the reliability of existing punitive measures in the United Kingdom in particular, and around the world more broadly [4].
We are surely all too familiar with the closing phrase that follows many criminal cases: “justice is served,” along with the sense of relief felt by those involved when they learn that the offender has been arrested. However, as the case above suggests, is the arrest of an offender truly the optimal solution? Is the widespread use of this approach chosen because of its effectiveness, or are there other reasons behind it?
At this point, we would like to introduce the concept of “punitive feminism,” a term coined by Elizabeth Bernstein in her essay “The Sexual Politics of New Abolitionism” [5]. According to Bernstein, “carceral feminism” refers to the tendency among some feminist activists to view the legal framework and criminal punishment as the primary tools for achieving gender equality, an influence that continues to persist today. One of the clearest examples of this approach is the increasing use of imprisonment as a response to cases of violence against women [6].
In the 1990s, as feminism was gradually becoming more mainstream, the “War on Drugs” policy was widely introduced in the United States. By focusing on legal punishment, fostering a political climate that normalized mass incarceration, and treating punishment as the optimal solution, this policy created the conditions for the emergence of carceral feminism. Some feminists adopted similar punitive and incarcerative strategies to address gender-based violence, and this approach continues to exist today.
For instance, in a case in Crumpsall, where a woman was abused by a security guard in his duty room, the police officer handling the case stated that they had “…ensured that justice was served against Mughal, who will now spend a long time behind bars” [7]. In another case in Greater Manchester, a man who had committed sexual assault in 2006 was arrested and imprisoned in 2020. According to a Detective Constable from the CID in Stretford: “…we will do everything in our power to find you and bring you to justice” [8].
It can be seen that arrest has seemingly become the default response of the justice system to most criminal offences. This reflects an almost absolute faith in imprisonment as the optimal solution, leaving little room for people to question or investigate more deeply the complex causes behind acts of violence or abuse. However, this approach is not truly just, and the widespread application of carceral feminism may narrow our perspective on cases involving violence.
- THE IMAGE OF THE VICTIM IN THE FRAMEWORK OF CARCERAL FEMINISM
Professor Aya Gruber wrote in Part II of her book The Feminist War on Crime [9]: “In order to be granted equality, the victim must fit the mold of a young, weak, and severely harmed girl—often a beautiful, well-educated white woman. By contrast, the offender must be portrayed as an evil figure: a dark-web predator, a rapist lurking in the bushes, a drunken husband, a person of color, or someone from the so-called Third World.”
From this, we can see that carceral feminism is, in essence, built upon discriminatory stereotypes. This unintentionally excludes marginalized groups such as women of color and women from ethnic minorities. They are not only among the most disadvantaged groups, as they experience significantly higher rates of abuse compared with other groups of victims, but also often lack sufficient protection from the law [10].
When carceral feminism is put into practice, it forces both victims and offenders to possess certain characteristics that fit a prescribed standard in order to receive recognition and protection. In particular, female victims are not only confined within racial stereotypes, but also subjected to expectations about their recovery after the case. Once the offender has been arrested, it is assumed that “justice has been served,” and the law implicitly presumes that the victim will quickly recover, both physically and psychologically.
In reality, focusing on the imprisonment of perpetrators, most of whom are men, unintentionally creates the perception that the threat to women comes only from individual abusers, rather than from deeper social factors. Meanwhile, after experiencing abuse, women must also confront other threats, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, social scrutiny, and the difficulty of returning to their previous rhythm of everyday life.
In reality, focusing on the imprisonment of perpetrators, most of whom are men, unintentionally creates the perception that the threat to women comes only from individual abusers, rather than from deeper social factors. Meanwhile, after experiencing abuse, women must also confront other threats, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, social scrutiny, and the difficulty of returning to their previous rhythm of everyday life.
Moreover, this ideology may place women themselves in an even more difficult position. In cases involving abuse within an intimate relationship, women can easily be criticized for “resisting” the other person’s agency. This is clearly reflected in the fact that when victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) actively fight back against abuse, they are often no longer recognized as victims. As a result, the many difficulties they face when attempting to leave a toxic relationship are overlooked [11].
Ultimately, the implementation of carceral feminism contains many flaws. There are still numerous cases in which victims who are people of color or who lack sufficient economic resources—groups that often receive less legal protection—continue to face financial and reputational difficulties even after winning their cases [12][13][14]. Meanwhile, a large number of victims choose not to report crimes because the abuser may be their provider, superior, or someone who threatens them [15]. Others choose to remain silent because they fear a lack of empathy or the victim-blaming mentality that often emerges on social media.
A criminal case often involves multiple dimensions, while justice itself is a multidimensional concept. However, carceral feminism tends to focus solely on punishing the perpetrator. As a result, only one part of the problem is addressed, without fully securing the rights and needs of the victim. Therefore, if we continue to rely on carceral feminism as the primary method of resolution, we will not be able to ensure justice for victims; instead, we may even place them in an even more difficult position.
- ALTERNATIVES TO PUNISHMENT
If carceral feminism is not the optimal solution, what alternative paths can we take to both protect victims and address gender-based violence?
First, the focus of each case must shift from punishment to protection. Instead of concentrating resources on sending the abuser to prison, we need to prioritize supporting victims both physically and psychologically. Particular attention should be paid to their financial capacity, especially if the abuser is their husband or superior. This is because, even after a case has ended, women are often the ones who continue to face greater disadvantages and difficulties.
Second, at the individual level, if there are victims of abuse around us, we should express our care through small gestures such as listening to them and asking about their well-being, in order to create a safe space where they can open up. This kind of care helps prevent victims from falling into isolation and, at the same time, contributes to alleviating their psychological trauma.
However, individual and isolated efforts are unlikely to achieve long-term effectiveness unless they are accompanied by changes within the legal system. Such changes require substantial resources and considerable time, which means that addressing the root causes of violence remains a deeply challenging issue.
So, returning to the larger question: can punishment and justice coexist, and are they truly equivalent? In reality, punishment plays an important role in deterrence and in maintaining social order. However, it often focuses only on dealing with the individual who caused harm, without addressing the victim’s deeper wounds or the root causes of violence. By contrast, justice does not end with punishment; it also seeks safety, repair, and healing for the harm that has been done. Therefore, an effective justice system should not stop at punishment alone, but should also incorporate restorative solutions.
Finally, let us remember that: Justice is not measured by how many people we have punished, but by how many lives we have saved.
Author: Phung Hoang Chau Anh
English 
Vietnamese
Leave a Reply