Erikson, Kai T. 2005. Wayward puritans: A study in the sociology of deviance (p.199-205). Pearson Education Inc.
This reading takes us beyond the period of the enlightenment and into the practical application of the new rationality. We enter the period, around the turn of the 19th century, where we witness the birth of the modern penal institution in the United States as the new form of discipline for the criminal or deviant element of society.
Dr. Erikson of the Yale department of sociology puts two early American penal models in juxtaposition and draws comparison.
The first is the Quaker model, Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia and the second, Aburn State Prison in New York. Prior to these prison structures, penal institutions served mainly to hold convicts until execution or to hold "persons like debtors" with no convictions (p. 199). Until the advent of these two penal institutions, prisons had rarely been used as a form of punishment for convicted criminals (p. 199).
With the enlightenment period came a new rule of law. Rather than singling out people individually for each individual crime and deciding punishment on a case by case basis, the description of individual crimes became generalized so that individual actions would now fit a standard and in turn, punishment for crimes became standardized as well. Torture and being publicly put to death were out the window and instead criminals were to be imprisoned. Enter the modern age of penal institutions.
The early models of American penal institutions were much like everything else during this time period: An experiment. Many ideas as to how to implement this new form of punishment were abound.
The Quakers, still a political force during the period, conceptualized the penal model in Philadelphia which encompassed both the order of the law with respect to punishment as well as their own moral and religious leanings. The idea was that inmates were to be locked in separate cells where they were confined for the duration of their sentence. If the inmates had a useful trade they would engage in said trade in the privacy of their own cells and would take their exercise in solitude in isolated courtyards. The stated purpose of the "solitary treatment" was to give the inmates a chance at moral self reflection and a "chance to come to terms with their inner selves and gain a more religious outlook for the future" (p. 200). The intended purpose of such self reflection and internalized religious doctrine was to effect rehabilitation of the inmate. The governing philosophy here was that in this solitary yet humane setting, the inmates "natural grace" would be able to emerge (p. 202) changing the man so thoroughly that he should return to society without further criminal incident.
The New York model represented a different approach or set of ideals with respect to incarceration. Here, the inmates were locked in separate cells but would move into congregated workshops during the day to work. Some inmates would work outside the prison walls in "tightly disciplined gangs" and all would come together at meal time in a "common mess hall" (p. 200). Still, there was a catch. In order to maintain control of this congregation of men, silence was strictly enforced by way of corporal punishment. If you got out of line, you were whipped, period. Here the idea was not rehabilitation. The warden at Aburn believed these men to be inherently wicked or deviant. He did not believe that rehabilitation was possible, but sought instead to merely "curb or bend" the habits of these men to "fit the needs of society" (p. 202). This curbing and bending was again, achieved by a liberal use of the whip, intended to break the prisoner (p. 202). The philosophy in operation here is that though the man may not be rehabilitated, he should become "tamed" so that he is molded into a "passive, compliant, and dulled member of the social order" (p. 203).
It is obvious that as the penal system grew and matured, our society leaned towards the punitive side of punishment. Today, America has the largest prison population as compared to any other country in the world. Recidivism rates are enormous and the cost to the taxpayer and society as a whole much outweighs the benefit of the current mode of punishment. We are in desperate need of prison reform. The time has come for a new experiment.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Breaking Eggs To Make An Omelet?
Danner, Mark. (2009). The Red Cross torture report: What it means. The New York Book Review, 56 (7).
This article is an analyses of The International Committee of the Red Cross' report on the treatment of 14 "high value" detainees held in CIA custody overseas in what are referred to as "black site prisons" i.e. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in the Middle East.
These sites are particularly famous (more so since 9/11) for prisoner abuse and torture that includes many "techniques" such as "forced nudity, sleep deprivation, long term standing, and water suffocation" by way of water boarding. Other more heinous practices stretch to binding a prisoner with a straight jacket, his only article of clothing, and using a stopper in his rectum. In 2006, horrendous photo's detailing these practices were leaked to the press. The world viewed these photo's with abject horror and outrage. The international community was irate with the Bush administration and America's benevolent (ha!) reputation was forever tarnished...
Find photo's here: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
The acclaimed theorist Foucault, would tell us in his book "Discipline and Punish" that torture "is not a lawless practice" that it is instead, a "technique." That however, was the torture of old. That was torture to "repay society." This kind of torture enters a whole new realm. The political realm. The American political realm...Are you scared yet?
Danner's article looks at many issues raised by the Red Cross report, but pays particular attention to the American political discourse had in the last 6 years.
First Cheny. As if we (depends which "we" doesn't it?) didn't hate this international war criminal and thug enough, we can find new lows, even for him, in Danner's article. Cheny (and Bush camp groupies) look at this form of torture as "a necessary evil" to protect "the American public." We know from first hand experience that Cheny (like his comrades the Bushs') has no use for the laws that govern society unless it is something useful like "corporate person hood" or some such thing. (Remember the guy he shot in the face in the woods who later apologized to him?) In the little spirit of fairness that I can muster for Cheny, he is concerned, and rightfully so, about biological attacks and nuclear weapons, which could involve the "deaths of hundreds of thousands of people" (these aren't your father's terrorists are they?).
In an interview conducted two weeks after he left office, Cheny goes on to say " I think there's a high probability of such an attempt." He then turns logic on its ear and uses his thoughts as if they are fact and goes on to predict that the release of "hard-core" Al Queda terrorists being held a Guantanamo (referencing Obama's promise to close the site within a year from when he took office) equals the killing of thousands of American's, and wonders aloud, who will be to blame then? This is the kind of insular logic we have come to expect from Cheny, but it enrages me every time. Who is this guy, the genie of the lamp? Madam Zolta who can predict the future? Give me a break.
Danner calls this kind of thinking "audacious, outrageous, even reckless." He does go on to say however, that though this logic is insidious, in the aftermath of a future attack, it may turn out to be compelling. I don't care. Cheny and his followers operate in the secrecy of old and fear is their main weapon. (Recall McCain, 1 month after 9/11, sitting with David Letterman starting the beating of the war drums) Danner says that "Torture is at the heart of the deadly politics of National Security." It is part of it, of course, but at the black corrupted heart of the politics of National Security lies fear. The international community better take notice, you mess with us, we'll get you good, leave you nothing but a vapor. On the home front, America's citizens better be in fear of her leadership as well. It boils down to social control, abroad and state side.
Next Blog to come: Obama's thoughts on this international war past time.
This article is an analyses of The International Committee of the Red Cross' report on the treatment of 14 "high value" detainees held in CIA custody overseas in what are referred to as "black site prisons" i.e. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in the Middle East.
These sites are particularly famous (more so since 9/11) for prisoner abuse and torture that includes many "techniques" such as "forced nudity, sleep deprivation, long term standing, and water suffocation" by way of water boarding. Other more heinous practices stretch to binding a prisoner with a straight jacket, his only article of clothing, and using a stopper in his rectum. In 2006, horrendous photo's detailing these practices were leaked to the press. The world viewed these photo's with abject horror and outrage. The international community was irate with the Bush administration and America's benevolent (ha!) reputation was forever tarnished...
Find photo's here: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
The acclaimed theorist Foucault, would tell us in his book "Discipline and Punish" that torture "is not a lawless practice" that it is instead, a "technique." That however, was the torture of old. That was torture to "repay society." This kind of torture enters a whole new realm. The political realm. The American political realm...Are you scared yet?
Danner's article looks at many issues raised by the Red Cross report, but pays particular attention to the American political discourse had in the last 6 years.
First Cheny. As if we (depends which "we" doesn't it?) didn't hate this international war criminal and thug enough, we can find new lows, even for him, in Danner's article. Cheny (and Bush camp groupies) look at this form of torture as "a necessary evil" to protect "the American public." We know from first hand experience that Cheny (like his comrades the Bushs') has no use for the laws that govern society unless it is something useful like "corporate person hood" or some such thing. (Remember the guy he shot in the face in the woods who later apologized to him?) In the little spirit of fairness that I can muster for Cheny, he is concerned, and rightfully so, about biological attacks and nuclear weapons, which could involve the "deaths of hundreds of thousands of people" (these aren't your father's terrorists are they?).
In an interview conducted two weeks after he left office, Cheny goes on to say " I think there's a high probability of such an attempt." He then turns logic on its ear and uses his thoughts as if they are fact and goes on to predict that the release of "hard-core" Al Queda terrorists being held a Guantanamo (referencing Obama's promise to close the site within a year from when he took office) equals the killing of thousands of American's, and wonders aloud, who will be to blame then? This is the kind of insular logic we have come to expect from Cheny, but it enrages me every time. Who is this guy, the genie of the lamp? Madam Zolta who can predict the future? Give me a break.
Danner calls this kind of thinking "audacious, outrageous, even reckless." He does go on to say however, that though this logic is insidious, in the aftermath of a future attack, it may turn out to be compelling. I don't care. Cheny and his followers operate in the secrecy of old and fear is their main weapon. (Recall McCain, 1 month after 9/11, sitting with David Letterman starting the beating of the war drums) Danner says that "Torture is at the heart of the deadly politics of National Security." It is part of it, of course, but at the black corrupted heart of the politics of National Security lies fear. The international community better take notice, you mess with us, we'll get you good, leave you nothing but a vapor. On the home front, America's citizens better be in fear of her leadership as well. It boils down to social control, abroad and state side.
Next Blog to come: Obama's thoughts on this international war past time.
Foucault on Torture Part II
Foucault, Michel. 1975. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House Publishers.
When we left off last, the Enlightenment was upon us...Great men were theorizing about the best way to create a new law and order for all. The death of absolute monarchy was impending and the dawn of democracy was fast approaching... Reason and rational thought began to take center stage, and a whole new "field of objects" were now subject to scientific scrutiny...Logic had trumped belief...1000's of years of western culture were in the middle of an earth shattering paradigm shift...In a nutshell, the Enlightenment was a total reorganization of society.
In order to have a working and ordered society, there must be rules, sanctions, norms of behavior, and laws which everyone follows. If a person is not following the rules, i.e. committing crimes like stealing or killing, there must also be consequence. After all, the social engineering of consequences aids the masses in governing themselves does it not? We can't have criminals running about causing mayhem and getting off scott free can we? Of course not, one of the most important functions of government is to maintain social order. If people just run around doing whatever they please, social order is lost and "society" collapses.
What the heck does this have to do with torture? Lets stop and consider what Foucault thinks shall we?
Pre-enlightenment period, the way to deal with this criminal or deviant element was to have spectacle punishment, torture, and death. It was the "body" of the person that was condemned by the State. The intention of this public exhibition was to brand a body with "infamy"(p. 34). Public torture was intended to be "spectacular," to be seen as the "triumph" of social order over the common criminal (p. 34). Even to go so far as to commit torturous acts on a dead body to show that "justice pursues the body beyond all possible pain" (p.34).
These public exhibitions would drive the masses into a frenzy and as the Enlightenment began to take hold, sovereign leaders began to rethink this. Maybe it wasn't the best idea to rile the public in this way. Rationality, in its restrained subtleties, would dictate that a more somber rule of law would create a tighter social order. But how to properly punish then? To force payment of these deviants for their criminal acts?
Foucault begins to address this question with a question of his own..." If the penalty in its most severe form no longer addresses itself to the body, on what does it lay hold?" (p.16). The answer he provides? "Since it is no longer the body, it must be the soul" (p.16). Huh. The punishment now was to "act on the depth of (peoples) hearts" (p. 16). No more quick guillotine decapitation for you buddy, no sir.
Instead, how about years of isolation for society? Sexual deprivation, food deprivation, not getting to see your wife and children, back breaking labor for the benefit of the State, getting up and going to bed when you're told? In other words, complete displacement and a total loss of your liberties and choices. You get to become a tortured soul instead. Your body is imprisoned by the State and your soul becomes imprisoned within the wretched confines of your body. OK...
And what of the public? Where do they fit now? In a public trial where rational law and explanations rule and spectator sport is dead, a loud and rowdy public must now bring itself to order and assume appropriate courtroom manner. Now instead of judging others, they watch the courts judge and absorb that judgement into themselves...a new way for the governing elite to force compliance of the masses by a different kind of example. This new judgement would weigh heavily on the hearts of the condemned as well as the masses.
To be continued....
When we left off last, the Enlightenment was upon us...Great men were theorizing about the best way to create a new law and order for all. The death of absolute monarchy was impending and the dawn of democracy was fast approaching... Reason and rational thought began to take center stage, and a whole new "field of objects" were now subject to scientific scrutiny...Logic had trumped belief...1000's of years of western culture were in the middle of an earth shattering paradigm shift...In a nutshell, the Enlightenment was a total reorganization of society.
In order to have a working and ordered society, there must be rules, sanctions, norms of behavior, and laws which everyone follows. If a person is not following the rules, i.e. committing crimes like stealing or killing, there must also be consequence. After all, the social engineering of consequences aids the masses in governing themselves does it not? We can't have criminals running about causing mayhem and getting off scott free can we? Of course not, one of the most important functions of government is to maintain social order. If people just run around doing whatever they please, social order is lost and "society" collapses.
What the heck does this have to do with torture? Lets stop and consider what Foucault thinks shall we?
Pre-enlightenment period, the way to deal with this criminal or deviant element was to have spectacle punishment, torture, and death. It was the "body" of the person that was condemned by the State. The intention of this public exhibition was to brand a body with "infamy"(p. 34). Public torture was intended to be "spectacular," to be seen as the "triumph" of social order over the common criminal (p. 34). Even to go so far as to commit torturous acts on a dead body to show that "justice pursues the body beyond all possible pain" (p.34).
These public exhibitions would drive the masses into a frenzy and as the Enlightenment began to take hold, sovereign leaders began to rethink this. Maybe it wasn't the best idea to rile the public in this way. Rationality, in its restrained subtleties, would dictate that a more somber rule of law would create a tighter social order. But how to properly punish then? To force payment of these deviants for their criminal acts?
Foucault begins to address this question with a question of his own..." If the penalty in its most severe form no longer addresses itself to the body, on what does it lay hold?" (p.16). The answer he provides? "Since it is no longer the body, it must be the soul" (p.16). Huh. The punishment now was to "act on the depth of (peoples) hearts" (p. 16). No more quick guillotine decapitation for you buddy, no sir.
Instead, how about years of isolation for society? Sexual deprivation, food deprivation, not getting to see your wife and children, back breaking labor for the benefit of the State, getting up and going to bed when you're told? In other words, complete displacement and a total loss of your liberties and choices. You get to become a tortured soul instead. Your body is imprisoned by the State and your soul becomes imprisoned within the wretched confines of your body. OK...
And what of the public? Where do they fit now? In a public trial where rational law and explanations rule and spectator sport is dead, a loud and rowdy public must now bring itself to order and assume appropriate courtroom manner. Now instead of judging others, they watch the courts judge and absorb that judgement into themselves...a new way for the governing elite to force compliance of the masses by a different kind of example. This new judgement would weigh heavily on the hearts of the condemned as well as the masses.
To be continued....
Foucault on Torture
Foucault, Michel. 1975. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House Publishers.
Part one of this book, entitled "Torture" is broken into two sections, one entitled "The body of the condemned" and the other "The spectacle of the scaffolding."
We start with a place and date... France, March 2, 1757. The (attempted!) regicide, a.k.a. "king killer," Damiens, is condemened. His body is subject to a host of grisley rituals of torture: Think hot pincers pulling your flesh away from the bone, being tied to six horses as the draw you into quarters, which doesn't work, so they end up hacking away at your joints until you are nothing but a still breathing torso that is then burned alive....
Why does Foucault regail us with this lovely french tale? He's showing us the difference a democracy makes of course!! (More on that in just a minute...) During the 1750's in France and indeed, much of the rest of Europe, torture was the perfect way to deal with the "condemened." It was an artform! Great men in positions of affluence in society sat around and designed ways to "subdivide" death into a"thousand deaths" (p. 34). Here was the perfect way to make condemned criminals pay debt for their crimes against society and involve the public in two ways...
1. National Holiday! "Hey Public! Come, sneer and throw tomatos at the criminals! Watch as they writhe in agony, suspended in a place between life and death! Come and judge for yourself these men, these vile men (and women) who commit crimes against society! Feel sanctified in the knowledge that you are good people who follow order and law!"
Or a little more insidious.....
2. "Hey Public! Come and watch this morbid show. When you go home, please remember to think of the welfare of society. Please excuse us as we enter your domestic space and personal conversations, but we would like to remind you to never forget: It could be you next, so walk the straight and narrow. Thank you- The management."
How tidy. Not really. Enter the period of the enlightenment... Ahh, the enlightenment. A period of great importance and consequence in the recent history of our current global society. Great men (of affluence and means of course), building on old ideas, finding out about natural laws like gravity! Yea! A turning of the tides in which blind faith is pushed back a bit and science comes into the foreground of great thought. The birth of great nations, democracy, constitutions, human rights for the individual!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)