In “Part One: Torture”, Foucault makes a distinction between
the older judicial systems (from before the 18th century) and the
modern judicial systems. The modern system of punishment ceased to be a public
spectacle that exploited the torture and crime of the accused person. Instead,
modern punishment became more of a means of correcting the behavior of the
criminal rather than inflicting exorbitant amount of pain in the eyes of the
public. There are several reasons for this shift in the judicial system: some
may say the punishment has a “higher aim” in correcting the “soul” of the
criminal rather than the body. Also, the shame of the crime is placed less on
the judge or executioner through this more mediated system of punishment. Some
may say that this type of system distances the executioner from the physical
body of the criminal; however, one may also consider this type of punishment
even more personal between the judicial system and the criminal. The criminal’s
behavior is judged and his/her state of mind is assessed in order to determine
the most appropriate sentence. It seems that the intimacy between punishment
and the criminal is unavoidable in either judicial system. In “The spectacle of the scaffold”, Foucault
clearly describes the involvement the executioner has in public executions.
Often times, the executioner becomes a victim of the audience’s revolts when
the accused is deemed innocent. This fact may further prove the reason for less
corporeal and public punishments.
Well said. A thoughtful and articulate way of explaining the 'body vs, soul' methods of early to contemporary punishment.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the modern prison system is the fairer of the two, for giving the convicted a second chance and reforming them through education, but perhaps - and this is my personal reflection, and obviously not the ultimate - it is potentially more humiliating for the individual. A man being publicly executed can either stoop to an animal fit of outrage and anguish, or he can carry silence with him to his grave and quite literally will not have to live with his torment - whether he is guilty or innocent. All he needs is the courage of a few hours and it can be done, just as in Foucault's account at the beginning of the text. But, and this is more common in the prison days of decades gone by, the effects of conscience and sense of self are more lasting. The same man as I described above might find it difficult to survive in his self-reflection, for each day is a humiliation - inside or out of his cell - and with every night comes the anxiety of tomorrow, the dread that is a continuing punishment.
Fortunately, there is more to a modern prison sentence than guilt and humiliation: there is opportunity and a forward-moving path. The trials that exist outside and beyond the court of law are often more debilitating, but since our prison systems have improved, redemption and reform are still possible.
Nancy: I particularly liked your elaboration on the shift from ‘punishing the body’ to ‘punishing the soul’ and how you connected this back to the detailed execution scene from the beginning of the reading. Your argument that private punishment actually makes the relationship between the executioner and the criminal more “personal” is especially significant. Without the presence of a large public crowd during an execution, the actual act of executing someone eerily becomes more intimate with the presence of only a couple individuals. The commonplace punishment of drawing and quartering has now shifted to prison sentences. However, like Melissa points out, is this truly a much more lenient punishment? It’s not so much that society has grown more humane, but that we have shifted the target of punishment from body to soul. With public trials and private punishments, the true natures of various punishments are withheld from public knowledge. As demonstrated in Abu Ghraib, this often allows for an abuse of power by appointed guards---the greater public is fully unaware of the actions that go on in prisons. Because of this shift towards private punishment, there is a definite disconnect from the innocent public and the world of the committed criminals.
ReplyDeleteWell-explained analysis. Certainly, what Foucault says regarding the change between the older and modern prison system is true; he goes into much detail explaining the horrors of early torture and executions, clearly viewing the modern day system as a vast improvement from its former self, a view which is undoubtedly shared by many.
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite the potential benefits that our modern day prison system may offer, as stated above, the modern prison system definitely has its share of downsides as well - to expand, the idea of humiliation. Humiliation and guilt, being the negative and undesirable emotions that they are, can be seen just as much as a sort of torture as physical pain. In this sense, the change over time has replaced physical torture with more of a psychological variant, and though this sort of torture may not be perceived by all to be as damaging as physical pain, I would personally argue that it could indeed be quite devastating. In fact, relating to Foucault's "Body vs Soul" argument, psychological torture can even be described as the torture of the soul, which, in many cases can be just as much of a problem as physical pain - an example being what happened to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Congratulations for being first! You eloquently analyze the main points of Foucault's argument. I especially loved your comment on the recurring intimacy between punishment and the criminal. You also clearly elaborate on how the modern judicial system "punishes the soul," which Foucault believes is generally more beneficial. Without doubt, the modern era has pushed for a refined system: the increased emergence of human rights has caused the government to bar really uncommon methods of torture and view human life with a Kantian perspective. Torture indeed has become less endorsed by the public. However, just because something is not publicized and accepted by a majority of society does not mean it disappears. Torture is obviously still happening, and I would like to argue that the torture of the modern era is even more damaging than the olden days. Because of the improved system, there is a system of punishment and torture; an authority figure leads the so-called "torture operation." Members under the authority are more likely to relinquish responsibility and go to any length to do what they are told, especially if the authority claims that he will take the blame. In addition, the modern system of torture has no audience. Unlike the previous era, no audience means no one can interfere. With no interference, the interrogator has free will to do whatever he pleases in order to obtain answers from the criminal, and no one can help him. As we saw in Abu Ghraib, the torture that went on in the interrogation room was apparently far worse than what happened outside the room. Just out of curiosity, I would love to hear your own opinion on how effective the modern and/or older judicial system is, but overall, great analysis!
ReplyDeleteI find the way that you described the distinction in intimacy very importnant to understnading the difference between the two different forms of punishment. The intimacy between the criminal and the judicial system in the modern prision system is from knowing the prisoner and trying to understand how to rehabilitate them and how to fit the punishment to the crime. It stems from less of a desire to hurt the criminal than to discipline. In the other example of punishment, with the criminal being displayed to all the spectators. In this form of punishment the intimacy between the criminal and the justice system is physical, the justice system is physically inflicting pain on the criminal. This difference in intimacy shows itself in how the criminal is treated and how the punishment is manifested.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well-written post! You mention very important points from the reading. I was really interested in your argument about how the modern judicial system is more personal than it was in the older systems. Back then, it did not take much to execute someone. They needed very little evidence and the accused did not really have a fighting chance, leaving a lot of room error and innocent deaths. I would not say, however, that “intimacy between the punishment and the criminal is unavoidable” in the older system because punishments would be decided without a full understanding of the criminal. However, I do understand why you would argue that. There is intimacy in the sense that the criminal is more connected with his audience, but not necessarily his or her punishment. In the current judicial system, more people are involved; the judge is just one part of a very complex system. Furthermore, we consider who the criminal is and what his intent was when committing the crime. Even the psychological health of the person is examined. If he is mad, we don’t put him behind bars, but instead we put him in treatment. Although there are many flaws in the system, I can confidently say that I prefer the modern system over the older one. I cannot argue that one is more torturous than the other or that punishments now are all humane. We now know about the methods of interrogation in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Clearly there are disturbing events that cannot be dismissed. However, we have evolved in the way that there is faith in the criminal to progress from his or her mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI like your post. You point out many important and essential ideas that Foucault mentions in writing. There definitely are a lot of differences between the old judicial system and the modern one, but I think it is hard to say which one is better. The old system associates one crime to one punishment, leaving no space to argue. This form of judicial system seems to be more powerful and can possibly scare off others from doing the same crime, but it can also be very harmful as innocent people might be misjudged. The modern judicial system tends to set a punishment according more factors than just the crime. It takes into consideration of the situation, motive, psychological aspect of the criminal, etc. It also tries to correct the criminals by a series of education and hard task, hoping that they will turn good as they exit the prison. This form of judicial system is viewed to be more humane and fair. However, it seems to be less powerful. Criminals are judged and send to prison for certain time length or fined based on their crime. Though the system hopes to correct the soul, it might fail and release the criminals only for them to harm the society even more. Nevertheless, we abandoned the old system and moved toward the new system. I guess we can just hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteNancy-
ReplyDeleteWonderful post. You clearly understood Foucault's paper and even clarified some of it for myself. Your take on why the progression within this system occurred is interesting. You focus on the responsibility and job of the discipliner (executioner, judge etc), how it shifted, and how those responsibilities may be the reason for the progression. I think you are right on in that through progression the physical act of punishment has become less "personal," while in reality the punishment/ torture/ correction has become much more personal due to the introduced concept of correcting a soul rather than just torturing a body. It seems that you found the readings just as fascinating as myself and I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
You definitely did a nice job pointing out important information Foucault stated. I really like how you show all the aspects that came along with the change from body to soul. Personally I feel like the current system is not only more fair, but also more effective in the long run. You mentioned how regardless of the two systems the judge/executioner will always have a form of intimacy with the criminal, which I absolutely agree with. I believe that there is less intimacy with the modern judicial system because they are not physically torturing the criminal in front of an audience and especially because the punishment is not physically going from one hand to the criminal's body. Giving the criminal a second chance and forcing them to look into why their actions were wrong I think would be harder for the criminal because they are physiologically punished for longer than a quick beating. With that in mind, I do still find it personal and intimate because the judge has to decide the length of a sentence and different restrictions for each individual depending on the crime caused. Modern day prison systems are also more effective because it's structure while the old system lacked structure and a strict system to follow.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis particular explanation from your blog post caught my attention: “The criminal’s behavior is judged and his/her state of mind is assessed in order to determine the most appropriate sentence.”
While analyzing Foucault’s text, I noted his stress on the fact that the definition of “the soul” has changed over time. It is not the soul that has changed but the interpretation of the soul. With the change of torture getting deeper into science and the added questioning and reasoning behind why a person committed a crime, comes the leniency of determining whether or not psychological factors influenced the crime they committed. With that being said, the soul is malleable; one is not born with a good or a bad soul, it is capable of changing and being shaped. A broader definition of good and bad within the soul has been created. Therefor, by declaring insanity or some type of psychological condition, crimes are more understood and acceptable. Although these psychological conditions are legitimate, it makes me question whether our society has chosen to ignore the fact that there are bad people in this world, trying to conceal wrongdoing by forcing conditions on individuals who have committed violent acts. The soul being held captive in the “prison” of the body makes it seem as if crime is inevitable.
Nancy:
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the analysis. I really liked how you described Foucault’s distinction between older and newer judicial systems to be torture, and the hidden ideas behind the reasoning for torture. What I thought was interesting was that you said there is an unavoidable “intimacy” between the punisher and the criminal in either judicial system, and that you had mentioned that there the relationship is “even more personal.” It introduces the idea that both parties have created a relationship with one another, but in an entirely convoluted and sick manner. Perhaps the relationship between punisher and criminal can equate to the idea of father and child. In hopes to change the “soul” of the child, the father “punishes” the child to instill scruples into the child. In the newer judicial system, the punisher hopes to correct the “soul” of the criminal. It’s an interesting dynamic that’s given way to the idea that torture is an intimate ordeal because both parties involved are reduced down to their basic core – one side left exposed and completely vulnerable, and the other tapping into its completely animalistic, power-hungry side.
I agree with you that the current system of punishment is "even more personal between the judicial system and the criminal." In the current judicial system, instead of threatening or inflicting physical pain on the body, we now focus on disciplining the soul, a system which I believe to be more psychologically intimate because of the deep investigation and moral judgement to which we hold a criminal against. Foucault guides our understanding of this intimacy by saying that "the soul is the prison of the body". I read the statement as so: you can put a madman in ten different bodies and he'll still be a madman; but if you give him a new soul, a new way of thinking and training, a new moral code, a soul that is conditioned to obey, he will no longer be a madman. Therefore, the soul is the thing that controls the actions of the body and is, in effect, imprisoning the body. Our current judicial system pinpoints the criminal's soul by creating a penal system that classifies the severity of the crime against a set moral code. Specifically in the U.S. court system, we have a jury of citizens that judges the criminal's character and motivations for committing a crime. The difference becomes whether we see a criminal or someone who has committed a crime.
ReplyDeleteNancy, your breakdown of the Foucault reading does a great job of summarizing Foucault's argument and his main point that the way the judicial system punishes criminals has changed.
ReplyDeleteI found it particularly interesting that you stated, "It seems that the intimacy between punishment and the criminal is unavoidable in either judicial system." I think your correct in saying that regardless of the times or the crime, society deems it necessary to punish the criminal in some way. Whether it be through torture or immediate execution found in earlier times, or more recent punishment through regimented prison systems, a criminal is faced with consequences for the crime(s) they commit. Each judicial system, however, focused on punishing criminals in different ways. Initially, retribution was used as a public spectacle and expressed the power the government has over its people. The focus of public torture and execution was not to rehabilitate or change a criminals behavior, but rather focused on revenge of the crime and an exercise of power to create fear amongst citizens. Ultimately, this type of punishment proved to be ineffective and a more regimented type of punishment (prison) surfaced as a way to discipline criminals. This system focuses more on the individual and creating a specific, more humane type of correction for a law breaker. The latter form of discipline is clearly the more humane and publicly accepted form of punishment but it would be interesting to think about which has a more lasting and effective impression on society.
Nancy – great analysis of the reading. You greatly and thoroughly described the shift from a public spectacle of punishment to a system that simple places criminals in seclusion from the rest of society. The judicial system before was an instant punishment that was dealt out as soon as the guilt was assured where as in modern day there was a chance to reprove yourself to society while you were held in isolation for months at a time, left to deal with your consequences of your actions. In the past there was no hope of redemption and in modern day the whole point was to rehabilitate the person who was being punished. The times have definitely changed. Great Job. Your understanding of these concepts seems more than adequate!
ReplyDelete