Punishment and Modern Society - Essay Example

Running Head: Punishment and Modern Society Punishment and Modern Society [Institute's Punishment and Modern Society Garland examined the work done by "Durkheim, Weber, Marx and Foucault" and identified different aspects of punishment. He believes punishment to be something more than a easily understandable tool and a reaction to a "crime". This is because he thinks Punishment is urging some to do some thing legally or illegally. Punishment is given by those is power, in bureaucracy by means of "legal procedures" or by cultural and social isolation. It is usually given to overcome anger felt, or to replenish the injury or harm given by some one. On the whole it seems, the scope and basis of modern punishment is applicable in today's world more than it did in 1970s. (David, 1990. pg: 1) Van den Haag in his article "Punishing Criminals" supported the implementation of "death penalty" and the punishments for long time duration e.g. keeping the culprits in "house arrest" or sending them in to "exile" to reduce crime rate. The punishment are never designed or renounced on the bases of "class and race". Many sociologist believe that the crime can only be prevented by increasing the intensity of commitment on conducting it. According to a report published in "Crime and Delinquency" suggests at least "3000 executions" yearly are necessary to make "death penalty" an reliable prevention of crime. This statement is actually the perception of modern "intellectuals" rather than old scholars. the report of the "National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections" suggested the proportion of prisoners in US jails have greatly amounted during end of 20th century; 500.000 people were "imprisoned" both in "adult jails and Detention centers". (Tony and Paul, pg: 2-3) Today, the United States is following a policy of strengthening harsh and strict punishments by implementing big punishments in its states, increasing the duration of "imprisonment" form many crimes, by legalizing many compulsory "sentences". (Tony and Paul, pg: 20) Ruche and Kirchheimmer in on of their study on punishment stated "the transformation in penal systems cannot be explained only from changing needs of the war against crime, although this struggle does play a part. Every system of production tends to discover punishments which correspond to its productive relationships." In other wards one can say that these two people actually meant "modern" punishments to be a crucial tool for the preparation of employees- personal- in the "capitalist" world. Under dictatorship punishment are marked to be more evil: death sentences and life long punishments are increasingly adjudicated as compare to simple punishments. (Kevin and Robert, 2001, pg: 159-162) "The judge is subjected to strong pressure from above to intensify punishments on the grounds that the authority of the state must be defended.... Increasing severity of punishment is in the first instance a change in criminal policy conditioned by economic crisis." (Jeffrey and Alvin, 2000, Pg: 19-26) The "penal policy" of the dictators of Germany excluded the probability of taking social intervention in the adjudication of punishments. Today most of the" criminologists" blame the working class and the middle class for any kind of crises or recession. There fore the development and implementation of new penal policies is greatly necessary, so that the crises can be resolved in a better term. (Jeffrey and Alvin, 2000, Pg: 19-26) Durkheim's in 1964 did a functional "analysis" of punishment. Marxist did a materialistic analysis of the "nature and functions" of punishment. He believed study of punishment to be evidence based, detailed and "theoretically flat" in application. Punishment has undergone many "social, political and cultural" changes since the "sociological turn" of twentieth century. There are two approaches toward the penology. (Sarah and Lesley, 2006, pg: 20-21) 1. study of punishment is based upon the "structural factors" on the basis of which governments form their penal policies 2. The study of punishment depends upon the "cultural factors". These will help to change the "structural factors" in to specific adjudications and sentences. In other words, this underlines people's power to give punishment. ( Sarah and Lesley, 2006, pg: 48) These two approaches show that the modern punishment policies are more directed toward achieving the desires and wants of different kind of "audiences". Durkheim in his punishment theory stated punishment to be a process that helps to transfers our response to a particular crime and supports different standards and objectives of the society. (Sarah and Lesley, 2006 , pg: 48) Punishment can be defined as something above "criminal justice". These are actually different types of strategic plans used to maintain the society and the country. Different sociologists have defined punishment differently some think punishment is a situation of depriving some one from some thing, to train, treat, and monitor a person, to restore and reestablish the previous state. (Paul, 1997, pg: 16-18) Punishments are usually given for justify two "rationales": "backward-looking" and "forward-looking". For the former rationale punishment is usually given as a reaction to a crime committed, to punish for the insult for injury caused. However the later rationale focuses upon the future of crimes. So it believes punishments to be a step for stopping the adaptation of crimes in future by both the people or the previous "offender" of the crime. (Paul, 1997, pg: 18) Durkheim is a "founding father" of punishment theories. He stated that the idea of punishment is related to the "reinforcing solidarity". He believed the commitment of crime to be something very usual while punishment to be a process of supporting the societal change. Punishment can be regarded as measures used to administered control upon society. In modern society empirical researches and procedures are appreciated to maintain control in the state, to adjudicate a punishment. This process helps in the success of a country. ( Emile and Mark. 1994. pg: 110) Marxist based his "analysis" of the penology upon the shift from the "traditional" study of punishment to the "social analysis of penalty". He emphasized the presence of "seminal influence" in this shift from old to modern theory of punishment. He suggested that this type of influence can constitutes the kingdom of punishment as "knowledge". Marxist's theory provided a "materialistic interpretation" of the criminology and punishment in the West states. (Frank Parkin, 1994, pg: 24 ) The study of punishment started in 1930s for the first time. However it failed to get attention. But two decades later in 1960s it again fledged underscoring the development and manifestation of a new theory of punishment. This is concerned with the economy of politics. Marxist is termed to be one of the founders of punishment theories because he was the first one to relate the study of punishment with the "object of knowledge" extracting it from the philosophical spheres and areas of "penology". (Adrian Howe, 1994, pg: 5-10) Durkheimian theory of sociological punishment is not only social but it is also traditional in its application. He believed that the edifice society can be constituted with the help of "Penal technologies" as well as on the basis of "materialistic and non-functional" processes of history. Durkheim believed punishment to be "positive and productive". He strongly criticized the idea that punishment is an act that leads to the formation of crimes. Punishment helps to enforce shared interests, objectives and standards of the society. Garland rated Durkeim's work in the field of punishment to be the basic idea of the "social analysis of penalty". Although Durkeimian theory is criticized to be completely lacking an "object of knowledge"- as abstract of Marxist theory- many of the sociologist still base their assessment on it. Durkheim gave punishment core importance in his social assessment theory. Today many sociologist and criminologist- even the supporter of Marxist perspective- realize the importance and concreteness of Durkheim's theory of penology. (Adrian Howe, 1994, pg: 5-10) Study of sociology shows the unpopularity of Durhemainian principles as compared the Marxist. Today Marxist theories are more recited and repeated as compared to the Durkhemain. This may because the theories of Durkhemain were marketed with the success of the "functionalists" in England. This made him a "conservative" in his approach. (Jeffrey, 1990, pg: 107-110) It is for this reason that very limited number of sociologists and criminologist justify Durkheim's theory of penology and crime reduction; as his theory is based upon a "functionalistic" approach. Durkhemin believed a society almost few inside differences follow a strongly and collectively constituted understanding. These societies have the predisposition and characteristics to give austere punishments for minute or "ceremonial" infringement of "customs". This view of Durkheim was actually meant for the modern societies like those of west. (Jeffrey, 1990, pg: 107-110) The Durkheim"s "control model of punishment" has been criticized to focus on a small and limited sphere of punishment. Durkheim analyzed punishment from the "utilitarian and retributive" point of view. There many false ideas and attitudes in a society regarding the nature of the punishment and there outcomes. Durkheim's theory was founded with "secular" bases instead of "religious" basis. However Marxist theory paid much attention towards the religious basis of the punishment theories. It can regard as a major cause which lead Durkheim model in to obsolesce during last two decades. (Michael, Graeme, Byron. Pg: 337-339) Punishing some one is not a new law but its roots can be traced back to the ancient roman and the Athens. Then the criminals were deprived of their social life. There family have to suffer equally as they have to face the punishment of the offence committed by any one member of the house. The idea of execution and life time "imprisonment" was actually introduces in the "medieval era" in Rome. Initially the way of punishing included the prospects of depriving the "offenders" of the social, cultural, and political and inheritance rights. This deprivation of rights was later adopted by the legislator of America. It even moved a head and breached the ceased the weddings and jobs of offenders. Under the "fourteenth amendment" of the constitution of US the offender of any type of law or situation is ousted from his voting right. However, the only good thing about the punishment in the modern society is that today although people are deprived of many basic rights their "social security" is not affect. Today, states do provide these individuals the social safety for their survival. Yet the fact is that what ever punishment may be given to an offender the society never forgets his deeds and keeps reminding him from time to time. "Invisible punishment" develops a flaw in the societal image of the suspects. Ultimately, this ends in the "social exclusion" of the crime suspects. (Jeremy Travis, 2002, pg: 6-8) In the external appearance punishments have been implemented after being recognized as an impediment in the road towards understanding and knowledge. The official permissions given for the rehabilitation of the society is mostly concerned with the formation of laws rather than punishments. The punishment laws are mainly concerned with the types of possible improvement made by a person rather than with the nature of the crime committed. It helps in adjudication of the positive and "true" punishments. ( PAT O'Malley. 1999, pg: 3-4) The innovation of modern punishment theories is quite difficult because new theories always get jumbled with the old ones. Therefore, it seems that the obsolete and idol theories of punishment influence the current policies of penology. Many changes and reforms have been introduced in this field since thirty years. Amid 1980s-1990s, the introduction of different strategies to control crime showed the keenness of then practicing criminologists and sociologists. Today different "laws, guidelines, policies, punishment" move towards a situation where there prevails a sense of mistrust and sensitivity. In the modern society the punishments are adjudicated under the "legal systems and welfare state institutions". Most of the tough and relatively strict punishments were strongly criticized at the beginning of the 20th century. However, during the two decades we have seen reemergence of these strict policies in the "modern penal system" of United States and United Kingdom. Unfortunately, these policies have supported the "politicians and the legislators" to mould the punishment laws according to their will. On the whole one can say that the implementation of severe and harsh punishments like execution and "corporal punishments" has again emerged in UK and US. (David , 2000, pg: 3,10-11) The basic cause for the "imprisonment" of a criminal is to punish him for his bias attitude and actions. Punishment can be regarded as a "moral value", authorization of which helps in the "rehabilitation" of the criminals. Although many think that punishment is something negative and harsh, these people have forgotten that justice is very much necessary. Garland has focused upon the "cultural, moral and expressive values" of punishment. In a modern society punishment is usually regarded as an instrument of society and a norm of "culture". As a societal instrument it helps in achieving the "utilitarian" characteristics of the society. However, one can not completely rely on utility of punishment as sign of crime control and societal ratification. Prisoners are mostly punished to make them realize the negativity of their deeds. (Charles, Gerald, 1993, pg: 5-9) The idea of punishment actually retaliation for an insult or injury caused to some one. Punishment is mostly used to improve the "offenders" so that the societal calmness and stability can be achieved and maintained. It helps to provide "justice" to the victims. Although, punishment helps in the cessation of crimes yet proper "regulation and implementation" of punishment is very much necessary to avoid misuse of punishment. Foucault in his theory argued that punishment helps in the authoritative body to "threaten, coerce, suppress, transform and destroy" the criminals so as to bring justice. In modern society more humane and just punishment have been introduce to facilitate the harsh and strong societal structure. Garland believed punishment to be a whole of interrelated parts of society which influences relationships and cultures with in a society. (Garland, 2000, pg: 13) Admittedly, "modern society is changeable and controllable" therefore these pay more attention to the changes and innovation in the ideology and policies of punishment. The "interdependent" nature of both society and crime results in the frequent changes in the penal policies of a state. Today, it seems that bureaucracy has ousted the just implementation of punishment and penal law. There seemed to be a mutual and dependable relationship between culture and punishment. Punishment personifies the cultural norms while culture facilitates the just implementation of punishments. One the whole one can say that creation of a society is facilitated by the implementation of punishment in general. Punishment plays an important role in the development of the society. However, no one can use harsh and callous measures without the authorization of the "penal policies" and highest authority. All of the above arguments prove that punishment is opposite to Marxists theory and concept punishment is a "socially accepted phenomenon" (Garland, 2000, pg: 25) References Adrian Howe, 1994, Punish and Critique: towards a Feminist Analysis of Penalty. Routledge. UK Charles H. Logan and Gerald G. Gaes, June 1993, Meta-Analysis and The Rehabilitation of Punishment, Justice Quarterly, Vol 10.UK David Garland, 1990, Punishment and Welfare: a History of Penal Struggles. Roultage Publications, UK David Garland, 2000, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press. UK. Emile Durkheim and Mark Traugott, 1994; Emile Durkheim On Institutional Analysis. University of Chicago press, UK. Frank Parkins, 1981, Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Published by Taylor and Francis, UK . Jeffery C. Alexander, 1990, Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies, Cambridge University Press, UK. Jeremy Travis, 2002, Invisible Punishment: an instrument of Social Exclusion. SAGA publications, New York, UK Kevin Stenson and Robert R. Sullivan, 2001; Crime, Risk and Justice: the Politics of Crime Control in Liberal Democracies. William Publishing. UK. PAT O'MALLEY, 1999, Volatile and Contradictory punishment, SAGE publications. UK Paul Leighton (Allyn and Bacon), 1997, Instructors Manual for Integrating Criminologies. UK Sarah Armstrong and Lesley McARA, 2000, Perspectives on Punishment: The contours of control, Oxford University Press, UK. Tony Platt and Paul Takagi, 1990, Intellectuals for Law and Order: a Critique for the New "Realists", SAGA Publications, London, UK Jeffrey Schloss and Alvin Plantinga, 2000; Hand of God, Mind of Man: Punishment and Cognition in the Evolution of Cooperation. Published by Oxford University Press. UK William S. Laufer; 1993; New Directions in Criminological Theory: Control Theory and Punishment: an Analysis of control theory as a penal philosophy. Transaction Publishers, UK Read More