The Judiciary and Symbolic Power in the Application of Socio-Educational Measures

Abstract

The issue addressed in this study seeks to critically examine judicial practices in the selection of socio-educational measures within a legal system that employs illegitimate forms of coercion to deny the fundamental rights of adolescent offenders—particularly the right to the effective individualization of such measures. This often results in the reproduction of outdated models, grounded in the paradigm of the “irregular situation,” to the detriment of the doctrine of comprehensive protection. The central research question thus investigates how the Judiciary, understood as a dominant institution in Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, can adopt a more rational approach in applying socio-educational measures, in order to effectively implement the contemporary system of comprehensive protection. The initial hypothesis is that symbolic violence—concealed and subtle—is exercised by the Judiciary in the selection of socio-educational measures, and that fundamental rights, particularly the right to individualized measures, are not adequately observed at their origin.