ABSTRACT
Discussions on ‘legitimacy’ of penal policies often focus exclusively on (lack of) popular support as measured by public opinion polling. This chapter wants to draw a distinction between ‘normative’ and ‘empirical’ legitimacy of penal policies in democratic constitutional states. It analyses the tensions that arise between the three core characteristics of such states from a normative point of view — human rights, rule of law and democracy — and their implications for penal policies. Empirical legitimacy refers to the perception of the legitimacy of penal policies by different actors: politicians, members of the public, offenders, victims and professionals. In line with the normative argument, this chapter looks into some empirical results concerning the legitimacy of penal policies for politicians, members of the public and victims. It concludes by transforming the empirical findings concerning legitimacy into normative arguments for a reduced punitiveness in penal policies.
