In the first part of Discipline and Punish, Foucault talks about how the system of punishment changed in the Western World from people being judged on crimes, to the people being judged themselves. In other words from the crime being judged, to the person character being judged.
"Certainly the 'crimes' and 'offences' on which judgement is passed and juridical objects defined by the code, but judgement is also passed on the passions, instincts, anomalies, infirmities, maladjustments, effects of environment, or heredity;"
Interesting concept, and I think I agree. Although I'm sure criminals were judged on their character since the beginning of civilization, I think the stigma is more engrained now by a combination of the longer process and the fact that most people aren't put to death anymore and thus we have less sympathy for them when they have been accused of a crime.
"The stigma is more engrained now by a combination of the longer process and the fact that most people aren't put to death anymore and thus we have less sympathy for them when they have been accused of a crime."
ReplyDeleteDo we really have less sympathy for those accused of crimes? I do not necessarily agree. Although it is difficult to judge the emotion of those who watched the murders, it is my understanding is that public murders were almost events.
Of course, if we were to begin doing public executions and torture again, the feeling toward the accused would be different. However, I am not sure if has always been this way.
I agree that we do have less sympathy towards many different criminals than we once did, or rather many groups in our society do. The prevailing sentiment I've observed by people who gain a living by doing criminal acts is that they are engaged in what Foucault would term as a sort of duel. One where the individual goes against the state and there is an acceptance that there will be winners and losers involved and that there are rather heavy punishments for the non-state actor for losing.
ReplyDelete