Decline of the Role of Prisons - Essay Example

Prisons Table of Contents Introduction 3 Crime 3 Definition 4 How the government controls crime 4 Who is eligible for committing crime in the society? 5 Discipline and punishment 6 Compositions of Discipline 7 Torture 7 Public torture and executions 8 Reasons for torturing criminal offenders 8 Consequences of torture 9 Punishment 10 Discipline 11 The prison as a centre for correcting criminal offences 12 Criticisms for the role of Foucauldiam model in prisons 13 Influence of technological advancements 15 Bibliography 17 Introduction In a community, people interact and share many things, and in that processthey tend to do things that may be beneficial to themselves and others. Differences in resource allocation and other factors may force people to engage in acts that are against the society’s norm as well as the law. Such acts are harmful and in some instances, people lose their lives and property.In order to protect the interests and welfare of all people, the government has enacted different legislations that govern peoples conduct within the society1. When such acts are violated, there are stiff penalties that are prescribed for offenders by the government’s correctional systems. Correctional centres are places that the government has specially set aside so that people who violate the rules of positive co-existence are assisted to get back to normal life that respects the rule of law. Besides the law, every society requires that people live by certain norms; these are expectations that people are supposed to act within, and social norms are in tandem with social ethics. Ethics are principles that people are required to live by; they may not necessarily be written in books or in the constitution, but people are taught about them in the course of their upbringing. Crime In an ordinary language, a crime can be said to be an action that is against the established rule of law and punishable by the state. However, it should be understood that in the current criminal law, the term does not have a universal definition. In many countries, there are different statutory definitions that have been enacted to provide the extent and scope of some actions. The law defines crime and provides mechanisms of providing punishment to actions that fit into this definition. It is interesting to point out that the law identifies actions as crimes and decides on the kind of penalties that they deserve, this means that something that is not regarded as a crime according to the law does not fit punishment. Definition In general, it is important to realize that a crime, which is also referred to as an offense is an act that not only harms the individual, but is also dangerous to other people’s lives and property, as well as the state2. Such actions and behavior are usually punishable by the law, whereby different modes of punishment are fit for different actions; this means that in as much as an act can be termed as a crime, the mode of punishment will not be standard, but is dependent on the specific state regulations. On the other hand, actions that present severe harm and damage to people’s lives and property attract heavy punishments, compared to those that are less severe in terms of their effects. In all these cases, the law is meant to take its natural course without favors. How the government controls crime The mandate to punish people for any unlawful acts they commit is the mandate of the government through its legal systems. It may decide to curtail their freedom for sometime or train them in various aspects that are helpful in making them know how to live by the prescribed standards. In modern societies, this means that a certain procedure has to be strictly followed in order to identify if someone is guilty for certain actions. The law requires that reliable and objective investigations for any crimes that are reported; the suspect should be brought before trial with reliable evidence that links the person to the crime committed. If the evidence are substantive enough, the suspect is brought before trial and judgment made. If the offender is found to be guilty of the crimes committed, he is sentenced to prison for some period of time, pays for bailout or is sentenced for life depending on the magnitude of the crime. There are some jurisdictions that prescribe death sentences for certain offences, while the same are given life imprisonment in others. Who is eligible for committing crime in the society? It is expected in any society that any natural person has the capacity to engage in actions that can be harmful to himself and other people as well as property3. Correspondingly; legal persons also have the same capacity to perform crime. In the United States of America and other countries as well, it is expected that it is only non-persons that do not have the ability to commit crimes. These non-persons comprise of animals; this means that when an animal injures a person or destroys his property, he cannot prosecute the animal before a court of law, irrespective of the extent of harm that is caused. Discipline and punishment Discipline and punishment are terms that feature prominently in several instances of crime and related situations. When people act in ways that are considered to be against the law, they are usually subjected to different treatment which aims at rehabilitating them back to normal ways of conscious coexistence in the society. Micheal Foucault, a French philosopher, is among many scholars that have made important contributions in the understanding and creation of correctional facilities for people that go against the established law. In his book, he has comprehensively explained concepts of discipline and different ways of punishing law offenders. Foucault provides a comprehensive analysis on the kinds of social and theoretical methods by which massive changes and transformations were made in the western penal systems in modern age. Foucault made his analysis by the time the prison had been established as the best place where correction and rehabilitation of people convicted with criminal offences were brought. Foucault argues against the prison being taken as the consistent mechanism where punishment should be done mainly for humanitarian reasons. In the same way, many reformists who advocate for other means of punishing law offenders while abiding by the prescribed human rights have held this perception. In his assertions, Foucault traces the cultural shifts, changes and transformations that led to the dominance of prisons, giving emphasis to the body and power. According to Foucault, the prison is simply a type of “disciplines” which are characteristic of modern technological power and authority4. H says that this kind of punishment can be found in special institutions like school as well as in hospitals. In giving his remarks, Foucault says that the prison creates a kind of conditioning that builds fear in people; this means that they are forced to abide by the law because of the fear of prison experiences. In essence, there should be correctional systems that give people intrinsic motivations to abide by the law. Compositions of Discipline Discipline and fear can be examined according to four main categories that include torture, punishment as well as discipline and the wide concept of prison. All these four aspects seeks to explain the concept of prison and how it was accepted by the ruling elite in different societies. It is important that in spite of the different arguments that have been made against the prison as the best correctional centre for people convicted of criminal offences, there is still no meaningful contribution that has been made to replace this thinking. Torture Torture can be regarded as the action of meting out unbearable pain as a form of punishment to another person, or as a means of getting a confession or some kind of confidential information. At the same time, torture can also be meted out on an individual just because of cruelty. Foucault asserts that the prison is simply a place where torture is meted out on people convicted of criminal acts instead of providing proper directions for correcting and rehabilitating their behavior and actions. Foucault tries to establish scientific understanding and technological improvement to the concept of prisons5. In order to make his assertions valid, he provides a definition of the “micro-physics” of power and authority. He says that this kind of power is usually premeditated and well planned in nature rather than being acquired and sealed. According to his explanation, power and knowledge exist as one thing as opposed to the thought that people have held that they exist independently. In fact, knowledge is usually contextualized in a special framework that brings it out as intelligent; this means that the humanizing discourse of psychiatry is simply an expression of the mere strategies of oppression. This is the actual game of power, which is usually not worn by liberation activities. Public torture and executions In his explanation, Foucault examines the concepts of public torture and execution; he makes an argument that the public demonstration of torture and execution was a mere theatrical discussion by which its original intentions came up with several outcomes that were not intended. He says that the modality by which torture is executed gives an exact description of the extensive legal structure in which it functions to attain certain purposes. In this analysis, Foucault explains that torture is an exercise regarded as ceremonial to the public. Reasons for torturing criminal offenders At the time of torturing people convicted of criminal offences, the main purpose intended is usually to prove the effects of investigation on confession by the convict. Foucault says that it is possible that torture can occur in the cause of establishing investigations into the actions of the person thought to be the criminal suspect. This is because, in the event that partial proof is realized, linking the criminal suspect to the crime, then it is interpreted to mean that there is partial guilt. If the torture on the suspect does not succeed to make him confess or plead guilty, then investigations are supposed to be stopped and the person assumed to be innocent. A confession makes the entire process of investigation to be legitimate as well as any kinds of torture that may have been done on the suspect. At the same time, torture is meant to put revenge on the criminal suspect for the harm or damage caused on other people and their property. The revenge is done in order to mete out pain on the body of particular convict. To this effect, Foucault makes an argument that the law is considered to be an extension of the sovereign body of the convict, this justifies the fact that it has to take the path of harming the victim’s body. By feeling pain, the victim is able to plead guilty to the actions and then the law allowed to take its natural course. Foucault focuses on public torture of criminal suspects as simply mechanism of power that looks at crime in the military perspective. Crime and rebellion are all potential causes of war in the society’s institutions. It should be understood that the sovereign’s main concern was not concerned with demonstrating grounds for effective enforcement of the established laws of the land, the motivation was mainly to know and identify his enemies and attacking them in a form of revenge. In this approach, power is seen as a being renewed by the ritual of investigation and the ceremony that is exhibited in the different forms of public torture to the convict. Consequences of torture Using torture in this manner had its consequences that came automatic, although they are not the actual purpose of the process itself. One of such consequences was that it provided an opportunity through which the body of the victim became an object for sympathy and admiration by people who would not provide any reasonable remedy. At the same time, torturing ends up laying blame on the person executing it rather than the actual victim of the criminal offense. In most cases, people will always start to lay blame on the person executing the blame while forgetting the harm that the victim cause on people or property. The third argument against use of torture is that it usually leads to points of conflict between the public and the sovereign. In many places, Foucault says that torture of criminal victims usually led to riots and protests from human rights activists. These protests are usually done in the interest of the victim and not the people administering the torture. In most cases, the frustration that arose from this inefficiency of this economy of power concentrated mainly at the scene of the torture. In some cases, the executors of the torture can be rounded up by mob justice and brutally injured. Torture was only aimed at creating fear in people so that they could easily abide by the set laws and regulations. However, some people seemed to derive motivation in the victim showing courage when facing the adversary, this is something that prompted a different approach in treating people convicted of criminal offenses. Punishment In this whole process, switching to the idea of the prison as the remedy for this situation was not very automatic; there are changes that happen to occur in different stages. The exit of public torture paved the way for public chain gangs. The punishment for criminal offences became quite gentle, although this was not interpreted from the humanitarian concerns. Many of those people that advocated for reforms into ways of punishing criminal offenders were not pleased with the nature of violence and the way it was spreading within a group of people. The ability of the law enforcers was described as being very disproportionate and highly ineffective; in addition, it appeared to be highly uncontrollable. It was thought that the power to punish and judge was supposed to be evenly distributed, with the ability to reduce crime rate. The power of the state was supposed to be some form of public power. In this perspective, the mechanism was of a great concern to the reformists that it was on humanitarian arguments. From this development towards a generalized way of punishment, there would have been more places for punishing of convicts so that the bodies of criminal convicts would have been displayed in a manner that was more controlled and ubiquitous. At the same time, this development would have seen convicts made to work in respect to the crimes committed, in this case, the society would have been seen as receiving its due payment for infractions. Discipline According to Foucault, the emergence of the concept of prisons arose from the developments of discipline that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries. In examining this concept, Foucault pays attention to the forms of discipline that are thought to be highly refined. These forms of discipline gave concern to the nominal and most particular aspects of the person’s body. In this regard, Foucault says that, discipline led to the development of a new economy and politics related to the people’s bodies. Modern institutions that started coming up gave emphasis on individuating bodies depending on their respective tasks and training, observations as well as control. In this light, discipline was responsible for creation of new forms of individuality for bodies, enabling them to perform their duties within the new frameworks of economic, political and military organizations that started coming up in the modern age and continuing today. Later, Panopticon became the eventual realization of modern ways enhancing disciplinary measures in correctional institutions6. This is because it was able to allow for steady observation that were characterised by an unequal gaze as well as a continuous possibility for future observations. One important feature in the design of the panoptic was that the prisoner was able to be keenly observed without his prior knowledge of it. This was motivated by the idea that prisoners are most likely to engage in harmful actions if they think that they are not being watched.This secret surveillance meant that it was possible to monitor the behavior and actions of prisoners. Ideal prisoners are therefore those that are able to follow and adapt to the panopticon model. The prison as a centre for correcting criminal offences While focusing on the rational for establishment of prisons as correctional centres for criminal offences, Foucault establishes a case for the fact that prisons later became part of a larger system for carceration. This system has become prevalent in almost all sovereign institutions of the world in modern times. The prison has risen to become part of the larger network that comprises of schools, hospitals, military institutions as well as factories, which focuses on creating a panoptical society for its members. This system has been characterized with creation of disciplinary careers to members that happen to be locked within its boundaries7; it usually operates under the scientific assumption of medicine, psychology as well as criminology. At the same time, this system works under special principles that make it impossible for it to fail to produce delinquents. It is important to note that delinquency comes about when the society cannot tolerate petty crimes committed by any person in the society. This way, it is easy to create a surveillance that is functional in all parts of the society. Every country has its own legal provisions that define the use of prisons and the kinds of activities that take place in the prison. In general, the prison is assumed to provide a special and central place where different criminal convicts can be corrected and rehabilitated back into the society. There are different activities which the police do in order to give prisoners a different perspective of living in the society with due regard to the proper rule of law as well as conscious living in the society. Prisoners who successfully accomplish their terms in these correctional facilities are assumed to be proper people, who can function and co-exist with other people in effective ways. Criticisms for the role of Foucauldiam model in prisons The arguments for the prison being an effective correctional centre have received praise and criticism in equal measures. The main reasons for arguments against the Foucauldiam model of panopticism can effectively be looked at in five main alternatives8. First, it is the concept of displacement of the panoptical idea by systems of seduction that is known to exist in correctional institutions. Baumanfronts this concept by arguing that the most important standard of social order has changed greatly from panopticism to seduction. In order to underpin this argument, the essay created in 1998 seems to elaborate on his perceptions about panopticism and its relations to prisons. Secondly, there is an argument that examines the redundancy of the panoptical impulse that is brought about by the unmistakable resilience of the functions of self-surveillance. It is believed that these surveillance functions have become part of the normal societies that are socialized into the western subject. This argument is all about surveillance redundancy, in fact, this concept is receiving a lot of acceptance on different social media platforms, especially on facebook. Currently, online platforms give people the ability to self-disclose themselves; this is an important development that makes it possible for people to surrender themselves to correctional facilities and law enforcement agencies on voluntary basis. Currently, most law enforcement agencies are able to track people accused of certain criminal offenses. Social platforms have been designed in such a way that it is possible to get people’s details with ease, and with many people joining these platforms, the concept of physical prisons may not be of much relevance in future. At the same time, another criticism that has been raised over the idea of prisons as correctional centres is the sharp reduction that has been witnessed in various occasion of conceivable need for panoptical surveillance on account simulation, predictions as well as actions before a particular act is done. Surveillance systems have currently been applied in different architectural structures, and according to this argument, surveillance is cited as being tactful, inconspicuous and able to camouflage the environment in which they are placed. By placing them in strategic positions, surveillance systems are able to eliminate the need for panopticon itself. One of the advantages with surveillance systems is that they are able to detect any cases of indiscipline actions that can be described as criminal.9 This way, people do not have to rush to scene to identify and apprehend the criminal, this system is able to provide all the information that is needed in order to make proper identification of the person thought to have committed the criminal offense. In addition, the images that are taped and recorded through surveillance systems can be simulated on different platforms so that different views and analysis can be made concerning the actions that were committed. This process of anticipation is certainly evident in many of the surveillance technologies that are coming up in modern times, a good example of such technologies that are known for these developments are social network analysis. Influence of technological advancements Development has been seen to reverse the panoptical polarity and in the process, it has deconstructed the panoptical metaphor that has always characterised this mode of surveillance. It is important to understand that the growth and developments in technology have been instrumental in enhancing surveillance services. In future, it can be expected that chances of people committing different acts of crime will not manage to escape without being noticed. It is possible that systems have become highly reliable in providing first-hand information about the nature of such actions and how those who plan for it secretly execute them, law enforcers are hence finding it easier to handle different forms of crime10. The fourth argument against Foucauldiam model relates to supplementation of panopticon by the synopticon systems. The idea of synopticon differs from panopticon in the nature of extent of surveillance that they do; synopticon concentrates on surveillance of the few by the many. This shift has meant that prisons can be monitored using special systems that decrease the presence of physical enforcers in the locations. This technology has been designed in such a way that it is able to bring about reliable information that can be used in determining the nature of different actions and how they are planned11. Finally, panoptical systems have proved unreliable in different occasions; they have been unable to produce docile subjects that have been known to happen in prisons. In many instances, panoptical surveillance systems have failed to reveal different kinds of actions that have happened; for instance, prison riots have continually been experienced in different prisons. At the same time, asylum sub-cultures, ego survival that has been prevalent in Gulag or concentration in camps as just but examples of incidences that have been used to show the failure of panoptical surveillance systems. Bibliography Bentham, Jeremy., The Panopticon Writings. 3rd Ed. Verso Press: North America. 2001. Boyne, Roy. Post-Panopticism, Economy and Society, (2000). Christine Nils. Crime control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style. 3rd Ed, Routledge: New York. 2000. Dobson, Jerome and Fisher, Peter. 2007. The Panopticons changing geography. Geographical Review. (2007). Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. 2nd Ed. Harvard University Press: Havard. 2005. Foucault. Micheal. “Alternatives to the prison: Dissemination or Decline of Social Control?”Theory Culture & Society. (2009). Foucault, Micheal. “The Eye of Power” in Power and Knowledge. Harvester Press: Wisconsin. 1980. Foucault, Micheal. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78, first published in 1977, Palgrage MacMillan: New York. 2007. Garland, David. “The Criminal and his Science” British Journal of Criminology. (1985). Garoupa, Nuno and Klerman, Daniel. (2002). "Optimal Law Enforcement with a Rent-Seeking Government.” American Law and Economics Review. (2002). Pennington, Kenneth. The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition. First published in, 1984, University of California Press: California. 1993. Read More