Te British Journal of Criminology, 2021, XX, 1–18 DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azab039 Advance access publication 3 May 2021 Article Received: April 1, 2021. Accepted: April 1, 2021 © Te Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Overcoming Penal Boundaries: Exploring Te Evolution of Retributive Time Trough Parole Decision-Making Netanel Dagan* *Netanel Dagan, Te Institute of Criminology, Te Faculty of Law, Te Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 190501, Israel; Netanel.Dagan@mail.huji.ac.il. Te relations between sentencing and post-sentencing stages (e.g., the implementation of prison, parole or community-based sanctions) are ofen perceived through temporal, spatial and normative binaries. Te static time of retributive calibration—as fully known at sentencing time—stands at the heart of this separation. Trough qualitative fndings drawn from parole-board chairpersons in Israel, the paper argues that retributive punishment may evolve with time. As the fndings suggest, parole decision-makers ofen go beyond risk and rehabilitation and reframe, reinterpret and renego- tiate the dimensions of the deserved punishment. Tree temporally dynamic themes of retributive discourses were described: (1) unexpected sufering review; (2) moral character revaluation; and (3) diminished censure reassessment. Te fndings challenge both the static conceptualization of retributive time and the instrumental view of parole decision-making. More generally, the fndings question the assumed strict boundaries between sentencing and post-sentencing stages and call for future scholarly engagement with the evolution of punishment over time. Key Words: retributive justice, penal time, temporality, sentencing, parole, decision-making INTRODUCTION Te relations between sentencing and post-sentencing stages (e.g., the implementation of prison, parole or community-based sanctions) are ofen imagined through temporal, spatial and norma- tive binaries. Te sentencing stage is seen as moral, retributive-oriented, proportionality-based, ofence-focused, ‘juridical’ and public. In contrast, the stage of post-sentencing is largely seen as instrumental, risk-oriented, discretionary, ofender-focused, ‘carceral’ and largely invisible. Exceptions aside, this dualistic view is common in several punishment felds that adhere to the disciplinary boundaries of sentencing and post-sentencing stages. Sentencing theorists usually employ a ‘separability presumption’ (Kerr 2019: 89) between the justifcation for pun- ishment and its actual administration. Such theorists either ignore the relevance of the post- sentencing stage for sentencing theory, as in the case of prison (Kerr 2019) or openly reject it, as in the case of parole (von Hirsch and Hanrahan 1979). 1 Also, European prison lawyers argue 1 Courts usually support this separation by holding that ‘early release … should be lef out of account upon sentencing’ (Robinson v Secretary of State [2010]: par. 20). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjc/azab039/6262318 by Hebrew University of Jerusalem user on 14 May 2021