Foucault's Transition From Public Punishment To Prisons?

Foucault outlines the progression of the punishment of criminals and how it developed into the current system. From the early regime of tyranny, to our current political environment, the ruling entity has always tried to find more efficient ways of punishing those who opposed their rules. Torture, humiliation and imprisonment are among the top forms that were and are used. As political environments shifted, so did public opinion and power. The accumulation of shifts is what this book looks and to understand how the transition from kings ordering torture and execution to our modern judiciary system of due process. These changes lead to changed how the governing entity attempted to maintain and attain more control to exert the wants. Changes

The question remains, has punishment become a sufficient answer for deviance and crime, does it follow Foucault's fundamental principles that must be present for the system to be useful. Public punishment went away and prisons and chain-gangs replaced that and from that point to a new, moral based form of punishment. While some fundamental principles have been achieved, others have not. The transition moved punishment from a spectacle, with a gloomy atmosphere, to modern forms of re-education and reformation. The use of classifying inmates and costume fitting punishments to crime has further followed. Prisoners are monitored by counselors, medical staff, teachers and even employers while being confined by the prison. Beyond this they monitored and tabs are kept on them after they are released. This is to ensure a completion of re-education. While some of Foucault's principles are achieved by the current carceral, there are those that have not been achieved thus far are. Prisons don’t deter crime, prisons increase the recommitting of crimes, prisons create delinquents within and by causing family disruption. This means they do not support environments that help the individuals that are under their care. There is also very little given to families of prisoners or much given to support prisoners after prison. In these ways it undermines these principles, or as was referred to, the “Seven Universal Maxims of the Good ‘Penitential