The Punishment Justice and Reform - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: PUNISHMENT JUSTICE AND REFORM: STRATEGIES OF PUNISHMENT Topic: Punishment Justice and Reform: Strategies Of Punishment. Name: Institution: Strategies of Punishment The term punishment definition has been amidst of controversy among psychologist and sociologist, mostly on how its influences punishment and the how best to define the term. Despite analytical research in the sociology of justice and law the terminology behind punishment is ill understood in the theme of criminal and social stratification punishment (Garland, 2003). Though sociological theories agrees and states that criminal law is a manifestation of social composition but the theories mostly differ on the explanation of how legal process and law in the case of agencies that enforce law, correctional institutes and courts are manipulated by the community and areas of social structure. Our study will reflect on the adopted concise definition by Garland whose believe that the theories coveted by punishment are concerned neither with thesis of improvising the effectiveness of the penal regime and justification of for punishment (Garland, 2004). His definition is that punishment is the staging of an aversive occurrence or confiscation of a positive occurrence that follow a reaction which lessens the regularity of that reaction. In this study we are going to compare and contrast explanation of why? What Foucault called “the mechanism of punishment and how this method assumed their new way of functioning”? This will reflect back from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Also to be addressed by this essay is how confinement in the prison became the preferred strategy for punishing offenders? The theories will be based upon the works by the following philosophers; Durkheim, Rusche and Kirchhiemer, Foucault, Ignatief and Elias. According to (Inverarity, 2007) Durkheim, states in his theories that reasons the legal process and criminal law are reactive, he here elaborates that the mechanism of the these process is based on the punishment induced in individual, that is in relation to the importance of the norms and laws that they have violated. It is good to note that this theory is based on individualism and is much evolved around Christianity. The contrast between this theory and the rest is based in many spheres like the relevant areas of punishment of epistemology and of integrity (Arvey, 2008). To him punishment is best understood when there is exclusive explanation of the term (punishment) anthropologically. In his he devised ways of distinguishing the law between religious and human crimes. According to Michael Foucault his theories and believes about punishment, is that institutions should control people through discipline. His theory clear defies ethnicity and race in relevance of breaking rules and condemnation of prison sentences. This theory clearly phrases out torture as a remedial to discipline in the modern society, this he explains is due to dispersion of power (Hood, 2001). Thus he state that the deviant individual to the state should not be subjected to such inhumane condemnation as part of discipline. He states that the modern state will receive praises for its dispersion and fairness of power by directing the control to the mass not only one individual(s). However if inmates bring their ecologically structured beliefs regarding crime, deviance and legal authority into correctional institutions, ethnicity and race could be enforced for understanding the prison rule breaking trends that may have been affluence by this attributes. This is best seen is the modern prison, as in these institutions how they control the inmates by the perfect use of discipline instead of aggravation on inmates by use of torture and other mechanism that defies human right and those of a convicts like brutal and excessive use of force by the police or the prison warders (Baker, 2001). Foucault theory evolves a concept that postmodern society can be characterized by lack of the free will as portrayed by a character or individuals. The correctional institutions are the best application for the deviance of norms set out by the states and institutions of knowledge values and norms are kept in place to categorize, control and contain humans. This theory contrasts from Durkheim theory by assertion by Foucault that punishment are meted out in relation due to inequality in the levels of political and economics, according to the doctrines in this theory states that the law is an instruments that rules the elite or the state of controlling the poor and the powerless or the deviance. According to Wittek & Muhlau, (2003) Rusche and Kirchhiemer theory of links between punishment and labor surplus in recent years have seen extensive development in the institution of learning and criminology. The links that influence this factors are economic, ideological and political factors which are affluence by the value of labor, the ideology of judges, needs for systematic of capitalism and community. The skepticism about corresponding empirical evidence termed as “contradictory and elusive” matched with the sophistication of theorizing about punishment and labor surplus. Prison population is the main cause of and independent of the crimes effects and this is largely influenced by the labor surplus. When race, gender and age specifics measures are deployed, the relationship between punishment and labor surplus appears slightly. This theory acclaims that in the punishment literature that is prevailing and noteworthy, emphasizes on the philosophical and legal themes, this theme claimed that punishment are based on the grounds of historical changing nature of economic relationship that mainly constitute the labor market (Frederick, 2004). This grounds as devised the two gentlemen constitutes the true limits to penal reforms, which cannot be overcome by ethical and philosophical aspiration alone. The goals of deterrence are here connected with the centrality of the situation of the labor market. The end of deterrence will be shaped after the position of the labor market only if the given punishment can be reversed this occurrences can be due to historical solitary expectations by the lowest strata of the laboring classes (Claire, 2007). This position would signal the minimal value of free human being in given circumstances, this will be experienced in order to preserve condition of life in prison, deterrence and mostly generally punishment administration, this will reflect on the level of guarantee lower than that minimal. This is according to the eighteen century developed logic by social writers and named this “principals of less eligibility” and how the labor market normalizes prison life. When the labor market is tight this situation creates an opening for crime related activities and the scarcity of labor which literally result to very minimal wages fuels more crime rates and admission for this institution are very high and the condition of the life in prison deteriorates rapidly (Bedau, 2002). This theory also expounds on this thesis that in order to keep wages down in the labor market times which are favorable to workers, the nature of forced labor will be assumed by punishment. Formation of labor unions and welfare registration will be introduced to form labor policies that will cushion the effect from the labor market in doing so this will help to enhance the natural level life and prison life condition. According to Lu & Terance, (2001) this theory only contradicts with that of Garland on smaller scale but mostly defect and contrast with the theory that of Durkheim. According to Honderich, (2008) Norbert Elias’s theory offers explanation for the transformation in castigation and does not correlate civilization to extinction of violence as it purely its occlusion. From his perspective it’s clear that there is a peer influence on behaviors of groups from others as they are inter-reliant. His major interest was to overcome the societal split at the expense of the dissolution of individuals to the social processes, thus social life being mirrored to one’s character (Dario, 2006). This at the long term would at one hand pin point on the rectification of the offenders so that they maybe fit to the community and how the policies of deterrence are incorporated to the punishing of the offenders. According to Michael Ignatieff, he classified crimes on a framework and tries to establish a community control due to unrest emerging from the prison in relation to the social crisis (Ignatieff, 1978: 210). Later he concluded that therapy chosen doesn’t at all depend on the crisis at stake but the effort of establishing social control (Moberly, 2000). The undoing of Michael Ignatieff’s theory is that it doesn’t give explanation of internment, sympathizing and capital punishment. Nevertheless Elias was preferred over Michael Ignatieff when it comes to the historical change on the conception of power. He identifies the every structural property of social relationship and acknowledges its two-sidedness. As to some authors the independency of the people affects how they react. This is brought about by the capitalism in the society escalating interdependence and individualism. As the reprimands are moved in a penal complex it augments the brutal treatment to the people thus becomes more inclusive as modernity progress (Sadurski, 2005). Punishment would vacillate between extreme cruelty and an anxiety to cherish logic of duty and citizenship within the offender due to the incorporation of the marginalized masses towards the end of the 18th century. Also the capitalist societies generate reliance and division through differentiation. Consequently the communal life circumstances are revealed in the personality, and then the structure tends to the greater interdependency of self regulation and restrain of all individuals. References Arvey, R. (2008). Punishment in Organizations. Houston: University of Huston Publishers Baker, M. (2001). Utilitarianism & Secondary Principles. Philosophical Quarterly, 21(82), 69-71 Bedau, A. (2002). Theory of Punishment & Retribution. Philosophy Journal, 75(11), 601-20 Claire, V. (2007). Punishment & Crime in Contemporary Culture. London: Routledge Dario, M. (2006). Socio Structural Perspectives in Sociology of Punishment. Boston: Harvard Business Press Frederick, R. (2004). Principles of Sociology With Educational Applications. Upper-Saddle-River: Prentice Hall Garland, D. (2003). Punishment and Modern Society. New York: John Wiley Garland, D. (2004). American Capital Punishment and Civilizing Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Honderich, T. (2008). Supposed Justifications in Punishment. Cambridge: Polity Publishers Hood, R. (2001). Capital Punishment. Global Perspective in Punishment & Society. 3(14), 26-48 Inverarity, J. (2007). Department of Sociology. Bellingham: JAI Press Lu, H & Terance, D. (2001). Comparative Historical Perspective in Punishment. Cambridge: Cambridge Publishers Moberly, H. (2000). Ethics of Punishment. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. Sadurski, W. (2005). Liberal Neutrality, Social Justice & Theory of Punishment, Law & Philosophy Journal, 7(3), 351-73 Wittek, P & Muhlau, P. (2003). A Structural Theory of Punishment Centered Organizational Culture. Retrieved on January 29, 2010 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p107287_index.html Read More