Crime is inevitable in society, whether it be in traditional societies or in modern society. However, with an action, there are always has to be a consequence, however when breaking the law, the consequences are rather bad, and sometimes harsh. This is called punishment. Discipline is enforcing acceptable patterns of behaviour and teaching obedience. In an excerpt called Discipline and Punish, contemporary theorist Michael Foucault explains these two concepts. This paper will summarize the author’s main points; provide a comparison with a theorist previously lectured on in class, as well as a personal interpretation of Foucault’s arguments.
As probably studied in any law or history class, punishment in medieval times consisted of executions, and torture. Simply put, punishment entailed brutality and violence. However, with time, prisons had finally been established. In modern society, punishment is based on imprisonment, meaning a criminal is placed within a cell and kept there for a period of time, yet there are many states and countries that still permit ‘capital punishment’ for harsh crimes. The aim of this form of punishment had been to establish authority, particularly power. According to Foucault, this power means that for example in a penitentiary, there is a guard and a prisoner. The guard evidently has power over the prisoner, as he is the key holder, and he is the one that has the authority to restrain the individual from doing anything and keep him in his cell. Discipline is methods that are used by arranging a person’s actions and their experiences. Jails aim to reform a criminal and to deter crime. To reform means to transform the criminal to fit society’s norms and standards. In addition, a goal they have is to de...
... middle of paper ...
...ot). What better way to act upon power than this authority than in a prison setting. The prisoner would like to be released early for good behaviour and would rather not be beaten by the guards; therefore they will give into the authority. There are certain times in one’s life when we should give into those with authority over us because eventually there may be good benefits. Although some prisoners do not accept that they are under a high power, the truth is that they will be the whole duration of the prison term. Simply put, prison equals an advantage for the workers because they can exercise power while the prisoner loses all freedom and is not longer an real individual in the sense that he can he no longer can act upon his own will and intentions--he is no longer individualized and is rather dehumanized, meaning more like an animal in a cage than a real human.
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
Among the books discussed over the duration of the course, the most recurrent theme has been the dominance of power relationships and the construction of institutions driven by power. The framework for these socially ingrained power relationships that has been transformed over time has been laid out by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. According to Foucault, power is everywhere, dispersed in institutions and spread through discourses. The state functions on a number of dispositions which are hierarchical, naturalized and are the modes of power for the power elite. The result of this social and economic control is observed in nations and across nations through the beauty myth, the prison system, the creation of informal systems or the overarching cultural hegemony and attempted reform of the non-western world. The key to the success of this has been through the misrecognition of the constructed systems of power which are instated through very fundamental mediums that they are not questioned. These structures of control by the state are adopted and reproduced from the base of the familiar, through arrangements and dispositions that pose themselves as natural, as they are embodied and programmed in the play of language, in common sense, and in all what is socially taken for granted. In this essay I will examine these above mentioned structures of the power and how these models are used to discipline individuals and states.
For centuries, prisons have been attempting to reinforce good behavior through various methods of punishment, some more severe than others. There are several types of punishments which include “corporal punishment, public humiliation, penal bondage, and banishment for more severe offenses, as well as capital punishment”(Linklater, V). Punishments in which are more severe pose the question “Has it gone too far?” and is stripping away the rights and humanity of a criminal justified with the response it is for the protection of the people? Is justice really served? Although prison systems are intense and the experience is one of a kind for sure, it does little to help them as statistics show “two-in-five inmates nationwide return to jail within three years of release”(Ascharya, K).
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
Punishment has been a vital feature of every developed legal system; widespread disagreement exists over the moral principles that can support its imposition. One vital question is why and whether the social institution of punishment is justified. Punishment is a debatable issue because it raises more general issues about the proper standards for assessing social practices. Punishment is considered to be an exclusive province of the law. Parents punish their children and unlike most concepts, punishment has no severe boundaries.
We see that the author’s purpose is to allow the readers to understand that the prisoners were not treated humanly, and allows us to see the negative attitudes the authority had towards the prisoners.
Therefore, when discussing why the Council of Corrective Detention does not need substantial means of physical restraint to keep its prisoners from escaping- it is crucial to realize that the prisoners are held by psychological binds. The prisoners, raised in the totalitarian regime of The Council, cannot even begin to conceive the very notion of escape. Furthermore, the inaction of the prisoners is a representation of the lack of purpose of the citizens of Anthem. One who has purpose, would find it extremely easy to escape, as proven by the example of Equality 7-2521, who virtually walked out of the Palace of Corrective Detention unscathed. The prisoners of The Palace of Corrective Detention in Anthem are trapped within themselves, and this is the fundamental reason why they do not even attempt to escape.
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
Michel Foucault may be regarded as the most influential twentieth-century philosopher on the history of systems of thought. His theories focus on the relationship between power and knowledge, and how such may be used as a form of social control through institutions in society. In “Truth and Juridical Forms,” Foucault addresses the development of the nineteenth-century penal regime, which completely transformed the operation of the traditional penal justice system. In doing so, Foucault famously compares contemporary society to a prison- “prison is not so unlike what happens every day.” Ultimately, Foucault attempts to exemplify the way in which disciplinary power has become exercised in everyday institutions according to normalization under the authority network of individuals such that all relationships may be considered power relations. Thus, all aspects of society follow the model of a prison based on domination. While all aspects of society take the shape of prison, most individuals may remainignorant of such- perhaps just as they are supposed to. As a result, members of society unconsciously participate in the disciplinary power that aims to “normalize,” thus contributing to and perpetuating the contemporary form of social control. Accordingly, the modern penal regime may be regarded as the most effective system of societal discipline. [OK – SOLID INTRO]
Capital punishment is based on the proposition that there must be consequences for one’s wrong doing. In society, the message is clear; if one does something punishable, au...
2nd ed. of the book. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14.4RN, Routledge. Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punishment. The Birth of the Prison [online].
There are many explanations for what punishment characterises. For Emile Durkheim, punishment was mainly an expression of social solidarity and not a form of crime control. Here, the offender attacks the social moral order by committing a crime and therefore, has to be punished, to show that this moral order still "works". Durkheim's theory suggests that punishment must be visible to everyone, and so expresses the outrage of all members of society against the challenge to their collective values. The form of punishment changes between mechanic (torture, execution) and organic (prison) solidarity because the values of society change but the idea behind punishing, the essence, stays the same - keeping the moral order intact not decreasing crime. Foucault has a different view of the role or function of punishment. For Foucault, punishment signifies political control. His theory compares the age of torture with the age of prison, concluding that the shift from the former to the latter is done due to changes in society and new strategies needed for the dominance of it by the rulers. Punishment for Foucault is a show of power first brutal and direct (torture), then organised and rational (prison). Punishment does not get more lenient because of humanitarian reasons but because the power relations in society change.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.