Doing History Response - Research Paper Example

Response Paper: There are a number of parallels that emanates from the modern penal developments, and anti-terrorism legal laws, and developments. This is when compared to the modern and medieval economies of power, which are described in the book by Michael Foucault (Foucault, 1). In responding to this article, there is a need of first looking at the opaque laws in regard to terrorism that are proposed by world powers, and of particular concern is the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has proposed a law, whereby suspected terrorism is not allowed to access the evidence that is brought against them.

By looking at the historical account that is advocated by Foucault there are some similarities in the secrecy and opacity of a sovereign archaic regime. The criminal procedures of these states were secretive, and opaque, to the public and the person who was accused. Furthermore, these procedures used to take place without the knowledge of the accused, or the production of evidence that was able to make an accused to be guilty of a crime. The proposed anti-terrorism laws by the United Kingdom are therefore a reflection of these assertions that Foucault, in his book is able to bring about (Bennett, 56).

Another law that similar to the justice system of the medieval Europe, as advocated by Foucault is the Patriots Act of the United States. This law is controversial in the sense that it allows the government to conduct surveillance activities on suspected terrorists, without their knowledge. This aspect of secrecy closely resembles what Foucault described, in the methods that the medieval Europe sovereign states of Europe were using to punish criminals. That is, investigating them without their knowledge.

This is an aspect of power that a state was exercising towards an individual (Bennett, 62). Furthermore, the power of the state is depicted in its absolute role as a prosecuting agency. The state has the power of determining whether to prosecute an individual or not. Prosecutors in the medieval times were very powerful people, and they could decide on whom to prosecute, and on whom not to prosecute. This situation also happens in the current times, where prosecutors have a complete discretion on the kind of crimes to prosecute, and the ones not to prosecute.

However, in the modern times, prosecutors are also answerable to elective officials and institutions such the legislature. This is for purposes of preventing prosecutors from abusing their power and authority. During the period that Foucault is able to describe, the production of truth was an important element that symbolized the power of the state (Beaulieu and David, 33). Therefore, the methods of punishment and investigation were able to coincide. Currently, a suspect is an individual who has a specific degree of guilt, and it is also regarded as a limited form of punishment, and this is mainly because of the stigma that is associated by the terms of a suspect.

Furthermore, the modes of investigation and punishment are not always dependent on a transparent code of law or a scientific truth, but on the affirmation that the state is a sovereign power, and it has an absolute right of establishing what is true and what is not true. This is what Michael Foucault believed in, when he said that the state in the medieval times, believed that kit had an absolute right, in determining what is true and what is not true. Works Cited: Top of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBeaulieu, Alain, and David A. Gabbard. Michel Foucault and Power Today: International Multidisciplinary Studies in the History of the Present.

Lanham (Md.: Lexington books, 2006. Print. Bennett, Anna. The Power Paradox: A Toolkit for Analyzing Conflict and Extremism. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2012. Print. Foucault, Michael. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon, 1977. Print. Bottom of Form