The Theory Of Power And Punishment

Australian prison populations are increasing, putting enormous financial burdens on the government. In the meantime, there is recognition that imprisonment does not achieve some of the stated objectives that are important, and, also harmful - to offenders, their families and in the long run, to the community. Historically, imprisonment (criminal sanctions) are used to serve four main purposes, “(1) deterring the offender and others like him, (2) protecting the public (community) by restraining the offender, (3) rehabilitating the offender, and (4) punishing the offender” (Birney, 2012). The statement that we need to build more jails and keep offenders in longer if we want to reduce crime is

Throughout the years, the use of imprisonment has varied, along with its influences of society. It is thought that although prisons have been around since the thirteenth century, prisons as we know them now to be have only been around for the last three centuries. The first uses of prisons were not seen as a form of punishment instead they were used as a way of making people do something. People would be held in prison until they paid their debts, or awaiting trial and then leading up to their sentence. McGowen (1995) suggests that from the early 1700s ‘bridewells’ a house of correction have existed, however at that time being used merely for vagrants and drunks. At the end of the sixteenth century there was a shift in punishment to imprisonment, along with this came a new, more humane idea of reform. Criminals would spend their days of prison carrying out hard labour. However after the American Revolution, imprisonment took a step back and there was another change. There was mass overcrowding within the prison service and although the death penalty was still being used it was a symbol of the power of the state. Therefore, an everyday way of dealing with offenders would be transportation to the colonies, being either Australia or America.

Consider the design of a puppet. When observing this structure, one will give attention to the source of the puppet’s actions being dictated by the puppeteer. These actions are able to be transmitted from the will of the puppeteer into the puppet through the strings that the puppeteer uses to control specific parts of the puppet. Furthermore, one can infer that the strings of the puppet are the motive behind the puppet’s action. If the puppet’s actions are disoriented or even disjointed, one can infer that the strings or the motives behind the puppet’s actions are conflicting. A notable literary example of this depiction can be found in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserablés. Late in Book V: Valjean, Jean Valjean describes the method of reasoning behind Javert’s suicide when he says, “To owe life to a criminal...to betray society in order to remain true...these absurdities should come about and be heaped on top of him...it was this that defeated him” (Hugo 1181). Javert’s adherence to his internal conflict imploded and eventually influenced his suicide; a reader might see Javert’s decision and confirm that an inner conflict of motives prompted his unanticipated action. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a 19th Century existentialist Russian author, portrays a similar theme in his book Crime and Punishment which tells the story of a man named Raskolnikov, the suspect of a murder case, who appears like a puppet with actions that become increasingly

This part of the paper will provide a comparison with a theorist previously discussed in a lecture. The theorist with whom Michael Foucault’s arguments will be compared to is Emile Durkheim. Durkheim sees crime as functional. He says that if there was no crime, all our values would be dispersed--these values are laws. These laws are observed by sanctions and punishments attached to it. However, in order for these laws to exist, there must be a punishment, thus, for there to be a punishment, there has to be crime. Repressive law, according to this classical theorist was based on punishing for the evil doing of the criminal through revenge. Durkheim believes that a crime is not collective and when one goes against the core values of society, one threatens the entire order of society. Therefore, this theorist would agree with Foucault that when disciplining a criminal, he or she should be stripped of their freedom and when

Especially since the lesson will be upgraded to a larger group it make discussion more difficult. Thirdly the lack of resources like library books, entertainment products, recreational materials or washroom availability can often lead to encourage prisoners to be more aggressive and violence. Because of those conditions, this have decrease the chances of prisoners be successfully reintegrated into the community. The consequence of overcrowding have impacted the delivery of quality of the rehabilitation and increase the risk of offenders committing crimes upon release may possibly even be greater. Nevertheless, it is important to point out prisons conditions doses matter since it illustrates how Australian prison influence how the prisoners rehabilitated. For example, the prison studies report the statistics shows Australia Total prison population is approximately 35,804, which currently rank 47 in the world along with prison population rate of 151 reaching the rank of 97. (Prison studies 2014). From the result it shows how overpopulated Australia prison currently is and emphasis how important it is to build a better prisons

In order for us to understand the moral theories surrounding the justification of punishment we must first accept that punishment exists to benefit the society we live in. Punishment as a whole should protect a community by sanctioning crimes to a significant degree whilst preventing them from reoccurring. If a punishment does not protect a community it is believed that that punishment is unjust and will be unfair to both the criminal and the community members. I believe that a retributivist style of punishment only focuses on the treatment of the singular rather than that of the masses. It is for this reason that I will argue why a consequentialist or utilitarian theory best allows us to understand the justification of punishment.

The novel Crime and Punishment is about a man who committed an awful crime. Raskolnikov’s murder Alyona Ivanovna and her sister because of his own theory of him being an extraordinary man. Raskolnikov gives a good reason for his crime through a idea that he has come up with. The man with power is the man to rule over all others. But this power is only given to those who dare to take it.

There are many different penological principles which Australia uses in its response to crime, the most widely used punishment is incapacitation. Rehabilitation and deterrence also aim to protect society from further offending, incapacitation protects society by reducing or removing the physical capacity of an offender to offend (Bull, 2015), however, other forms of incapacitation, include curfews, monitoring and reporting requirements. This essay examines the effectiveness of incapacitating methods, as punishment is often culturally motivated by crimes reported that the public finds despicable; governments are forced to show they are tough on crime by passing new laws. As ideas develop Australia is slowly moving

Conversely, rather than focusing on punishment such as long term Imprisonment in prison, the Australian prison system should focus more on the rehabilitation. Once again research have proven rehabilitation is really important according to Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad (Deadly C, 2014).The research indicates U.S prison population are rank number one along with the most reoffending rate in the world (Deadly C, 2014).Regarding to these statistics it can be seen that the U.S prison system emphasis more on punishment and don’t provide enough rehabilitation. As a result when the U.S. prisoners are released some ex-convicts have no skills or education to incorporate with the society. Since the prison didn’t offered enough support

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Michel Foucault is a very famous French intellectual who practiced the knowledge of sociology. Foucault analyzed how knowledge related to social structures, in particular the concept of punishment within the penal system. His theory through, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, is a detailed outline of the disciplinary society; in which organizes populations, their relations to power formations, and the corresponding conceptions of the subjects themselves. Previously, this type of punishment focused on torture and dismemberment, in which was applied directly to bodies. Foucault mentions through his literary piece, “the soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy: the soul is the prison of the body (p.30). However, today, the notion of punishment involves public appearances in a court and much more humane sentences. However, it is important to note and to understand the idea of power and knowledge; it is fundamental to understand the social system as a whole.

This is a summary of Michel Foucault's seminal work on the history of criminal punishment and social discipline as it transformed from punitive to correctional models during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Foucault in theorizing the relationship between power and knowledge basically focused on how power operated in the institutions and in its techniques. The point is how power was supported by knowledge in the functioning of institutions of punishment. “He places the body at the centre of the struggles between different formations of power/knowledge. The techniques of regulation are applied to the body” (Wheterell et al., 2001: 78)

In his ‘Prisons et Asiles dans le Mécanisme du Pouvoir ' (1974) M.Foucault offers a key insight into the methodology of his own work: “I would like my books to be a kind of tool-box which others can rummage through to find a tool which they can use however they wish in their own area... I would like the little volume that I want to write on disciplinary systems to be useful to an educator, a warden, a magistrate, a conscientious objector. I don 't write for an audience, I write for users, not readers”. In this essay, I aim at carrying out a parallel operation by deploying two critical theory terms, postcolonialism and marxism, so as to shed light on the cultural production 'Qu’Allah bénisse la France ' (2014).

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].