More handpicked essays just for you.
Foucault's theory of punishment
Critically review historical changes within punishment
The history of punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
This essay will attempt to look at the above view in depth, to answer the question of what the characteristic of modern punishment is for Durkheim. The essay will then move onto Foucault and his views. I will deal with each view separately, as is not easy to contrast and compare their views because they have a very different outlook on society.
Sociological analysis of the role of punishment in modern society started with the question of what the role and limits of the power of government should be. Through development, sociology became a 'separate discipline'. (Ibid., p8) Here, Emile Durkheim saw that the only source of moral authority in modern society was the law. In terms of punishment, Durkheim saw the criminal law and the punishment system as a way for society to express its rules and values. This meant that moral boundaries were outlined and sustained through the assertion of penalties for crimes.
Durkheim sees the role of law and punishment to be important for the solidarity of society as a whole. (Ibid., p81) Here, society has a...
... middle of paper ...
...decrease or work to control crime. (Garland, 1990, p23-6)
Durkheim sees punishment as a social institution, which is first and last a matter of morality and social solidarity. The existence of strong bonds of moral solidarity are the conditions which cause punishments to come about, and, in their turn, punishments result in the reaffirmation and strengthening of these same social bonds. (Ibid., p28) Durkheim begins his discussion of punishment with an analysis of the crimes against which punishments are used.
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
In Martin Perlmutter's essay "Desert and Capital Punishment," he attempts to illustrate that social utility is a poor method of evaluating the legitimacy of it. Perlmutter claims that a punishment must be "backward looking," meaning that it is based on a past wrongdoing. A utilitarian justification of capital punishment strays from the definition of the term "punishment" because it is "forward looking." An argument for social utility maintains that the death penalty should result in a greater good and the consequences must outweigh the harm, thereby increasing overall happiness in the world. Perlmutter recognizes the three potential benefits of a punishment as the rehabilitation of an offender, protection for other possible victims, and deterring other people from committing the same crime. The death penalty however, obviously does not rehabilitate a victim nor does it do a better job at protecting other potential victims than life imprisonment. Since a punishment must inflict harm on an individual, deterrence is the only argument that utilitarians can use to defend the death penalty. The question then ari...
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
In chapter one, Erikson gives a nod of recognition to Emile Durkheim’s work. Erikson notes Durkheim’s assertion that crime is really a natural kind of social activity. I started to think that Erikson may be trying to assert that if crime is a natural part of society, there is an indication that it is necessary in society. Erikson claims that non-deviants congregate and agree in a remarkable way to express outrage over deviants and deviancy, therefore solidifying a bond between members of society. Erikson continues to argue that this sense of mutuality increases individual’s awareness to the common goals of the society.
The emphasis on the penal law suggests that these certain laws and rules are made and implemented within society to ensure that harm and other offences are avoided. Furthermore, Durkheim argued that the penal law and the social practices that are evident is what helps regulate society, as he states that without these rules, individuals within this society will follow no collective practices or obedience and from this, will feel no sense of
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
At first thought, we associate laws as prohibited activities and lawyers as people who have high quality suits and expensive brief cases. However, law is not nearly as simple as it appears to be on the surface. There has been no time within human civilization where law was not present. Implementation of laws can be recalled back to New Testament times in the Bible where murder was a condemned crime that would be punishable by death. Law is defined as the principles and regulations created by a community or some authority applicable to its people. If we did not enforce laws or punishments, how many more crimes would be committed on a daily basis? In this paper, I will be discussing what Criminal law is, its historical contributors and its
Sarah Snyder Professor Feola Gov’t 416: Critical Theory Assignment #2 On Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” 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.
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...
Foucault describes in the “carceral archipelago” and how it transported the technique from the penal institution to the entire social body on pg. 298 of the text in relation to how technologies, powers and disciplines were connected in a series of prisons, institutions, and other organizations that governed or directed how social norms, punishments and regulations were administered. The archipelago referred to a collection of islands, which show relationships and structural similarities, as well as differences. Foucault uses Mettray as an example to show the emergences of more formalized structure or accountability as we could term it today with examples of power-knowledge over individuals. Foucault describes Mettray as the most disciplinary form at its most extreme, explaining that the models in which are concentrated all the coercive technologies of our behavior (p. 293). The prison was successful because it structured prisoners through the processes of discipline and control. The prison showed that it had the capabilities to transform its functionality to applications and technologies other than the carceral (punitive), such as hospitals, schools, and other public administrations by making the power and knowledge that is held over individuals normal. Its systems, because they were so effective were not destined to remain exclusively to the punitive environment. The technology that they enveloped was extremely useful, and as a result, discipline and structure have been profoundly influential in the development of social norms and behaviors in societies.
Law, ?a governmental social control? (Black 2), is a quantitative variable that changes in time and space and can be defined by style: penal, compensatory, therapeutic or conciliatory (Black 5). The brief description of law and its interrelation with social control and deviant behavior can be encapsulated in the following scheme. This concept of law put into the context of social life gives a framework of the behavior of law.
There have been , since the time of the Enlightenment, two distinct models for disciplinary institutions. Both of these models may be seen in the form of prisons. The contemporary ideal of the institutions derives its form from Bentham's Panopticon. In the period shortly following the age of Enlightenment, Bentham, an economist by trade, began to critically evaluate the disciplinary institutions of the day. Seeing that the model of the prison could be characterized as a form of discipline-blockade, he set out to improve the functionality of the prison as well as other institutions. Being an economist, Bentham saw that these institutions were not functionally productive. In describing the discipline blockade form Michel Foucault writes that it is, "turned inwards towards negative functions: arresting evil, breaking communications, suspending time."(209, Discipline and Punish) Now although this may seem befitting of criminal behavior, there is another disciplinary model which, when employed, will achieve far greater results than that previously described. This new form is termed a, "discipline-mechanism" by Foucault.(209) This mechanism is not limited in practice to prisons, its widespread use can form a disciplinary society through its employment in the minute institutions of society. Its deployment will create a disciplinary society where power is not accumulated but is made functional and useful in maintaining societal discipline. However, before singing the praises of this new mechanism, it would be beneficial to analyze the pre-existing forms of discipline and how they lead to this new model. Also, it would not be wise to readily accept this panopticism without realizing the social ramifications of this n...
The origin of the word prison comes from the Latin word to seize. It is fair to say that the traditionally use of prison correspond well with the origin of the word; as traditionally prison was a place for holding people whilst they were awaiting trail. Now, centuries on and prisons today is used as a very popular, and severe form of punishment offered to those that have been convicted. With the exception however, of the death penalty and corporal punishment that still takes place in some countries. Being that Prison is a very popular form of punishment used in today's society to tackle crime and punish offenders, this essay will then be examining whether prison works, by drawing on relevant sociological factors. Furthermore, it will be looking at whether punishment could be re-imagined, and if so, what would it entail?
Legal punishment is, and has been for centuries, a particularly difficult topic within both politics and philosophy; many philosophers have tried to justify it regarding the role of the state in deciding punishment, what punishment entails, and the repercussions on the agent committing an “illegal” act considered worth punishment. Concerning the nature of legal punishment, there are countless issues that must be dealt with prior to establishing a sound argument for anyone allowing punishment to occur, let alone how or why the state is the agency allowed to dictate the rules of punishment. In this sense, criminal punishment/ coercive force is the response to crime, and the punishment is through an individual’s suffering (either emotional or physical pain)1. As with most sections of philosophical reasoning, the two most common approaches used to understand the nature, acceptance, and subjectivity of
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 welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
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.