Fluid, permutable, and generative: Comparing parole punitivity in India and Israel

Extending parole scholarship to compare parole punitivity, this paper contrasts two understudied lifers’ parole systems: India and Israel. A qualitative comparative analysis of parole decision-making in both contexts reveals that despite distinct structuring of parole fields, both systems manifest punitivity, reflected in low release rates. Contrasting the construction of (a) punitive consideration (formal versus informal), (b) victims (individualised versus aggregated), and (c) public trust (judicial legitimacy versus political stability) we show how parole punitivity is fluid, adapting to specific contexts. We further argue that this fluid punitivity also serves a generative purpose: (a) it orients parole as a site of mobilising different goals beyond parole determination, and (b) enables a bifurcated parole field that differentiates ‘citizen’ from ‘enemy parole’. This extra-penological generativity exposes the potential and limitations of regulating punitivity through rules-based parole. The fluid and permutable nature of punitivity and its potential generativity, have implications for correctional administration, the carceral experience of lifers, and the legitimacy of the parole system.