“A villain truly worthy of this horror of nature as a whole, condemned to no longer see the sky that he has outraged and to no longer live on earth. which he has defiled, above the punishing city hangs this iron spider; and the criminal who must be thus crucified by the new law is the parricide.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In the statement above, Vermeil describes corporal punishment, “the infliction of physical pain” on the body of 'a criminal, where the criminal would be hanged in an iron cage so that everyone could witness this public theater of punishment. In modern times, such punishment would be considered horrific and inhumane, but before the Enlightenment, corporal punishment – ​​such as mutilation, flogging, branding – was a very common punitive practice. What caused this radical change in perspective? By considering the theories of Durkheim, Foucault, and Weber, one can develop a timeline of the changes in social beliefs and society that led to the changes in punishment law to create our modern penal system. Durkheim's criminological theories were largely focused on the sources of social solidarity and the methods that ensure the proper functioning of society. Regarding punishment, Durkheim viewed crime as culturally defined. Therefore, a crime is not simply an act that breaks the law, but rather an act that disobeys the collective conscience of society. Collective consciousness being “the set of beliefs and feelings common to the average members of a society”. Additionally, Durkheim viewed punishment as symbolic and functional, serving to strengthen social bonds between members of society. Durkheim also describes two types of solidarity: mechanical and organic. Mechanical solidarity describes more primitive societies where common morals are based on religious beliefs and where relationships are forged and maintained through shared experiences and unity. The collective consciousness is very intense and rigid, due to its religious basis. Thus, when the collective is violated by crime, it catalyzes an intense hostile emotional reaction in the rest of society that demands vengeance from the offender. Therefore, corporal punishment is common because even a slight violation of the collective conscience is significant, so the violent and vengeful reaction within society is great. However, in more developed societies, based on organic solidarity, there is a separation from religion and an increase in moral diversity. Thus, the only common characteristic that forms the psychic bond between people is humanity. In such societies, they recognize the value of the individual, freedom and tolerance. Thus, social bonds evolved from a hostile reaction when violated to a calmer, reflexive response. Additionally, Durkheim sees a conflict in people's minds due to the rise of humanism. The morals that are violated and demand vengeance when a crime is committed are the same that create sympathy for the punished offender. As a result, there is a decline in the use of corporal punishment as society evolves from mechanistic to organic solidarity. Because crime is no longer an act against God and the recognition of each member of a society having a unique life induces a reaction of sympathy towards those who are punished. However, Durkheim completely ignores this theory of the evolution of solidaritymechanical and organic in his later writings. works. Potentially because if he held that organic solidarity is superior to mechanical solidarity, he could not support his claims. In fact, in his later work, Durkheim emphasizes the need for group symbols and rituals in an integrative society. Which can easily be interpreted as support for the conscious collective, the founding pillar of mechanical solidarity. How can we have confidence in the validity of his assertions if Durkheim himself contradicts them? Furthermore, Durkheim based his conclusions on societies that were culturally very different from the Western societies to which he applied his theories, for example: the ancient Hebrews and the Aborigines. From these distant cultures he developed his view that punishment is the result of an intense emotional reaction to crime. Thus, calling into question the ecological validity of his theory of solidarity. Especially since Durkheim himself emphasizes the importance of culture in the definition of crime. Thus, these different cultures can behave in the manner described by Durkheim. It cannot be assumed that a Western culture will have the same response to crime or, therefore, punish in the same way. Michel Foucault has become the key theorist of the history of punishment. By examining the technologies of penal power and not just the social context of the time, Foucault filled an important gap in penal analysis that theorists, such as Durkheim, had missed. Throughout the 17th century, the scaffold constituted an essential part of the penal system. It was used in legal proceedings to torture the criminal's impeachable evidence. It was the place of revenge; At the time, any criminal act was considered a direct act against the king and his will. The scaffold was thus a symbol of the king's power and his right to punish. However, by the late 1700s, the public event of these executions became a place where the public could riot and protest the use of inhumane punishment techniques, with the criminal even becoming a people's hero. Foucault argues that these riots were too disruptive to be ignored by those in power and were a turning point in criminal law that led to a decrease in violent corporal punishment. Additionally, there was an increase in property crimes, with an increase in personal property, homeowners were more vulnerable. Crimes such as poaching and rent evasion became less tolerable and the law, full of loopholes, appeared ineffective and too harsh. Reform was needed, based on a standardized process, with penalties tailored to the crime. Thanks to this reform, the power of punishment passed from the sovereign to the people. Thus, the increased regulation means that punishment is now about the maintenance of society and not the king's need to take revenge on those who defy him; encouraging a reduction in severe corporal punishment. From there, the method of confinement quickly developed as the primary method of punishment, moving from an era of embracing the spectacle of visible punishment to an era of structured confinement. The panopticon prison was, for Foucault, the ideal method of punishment; a prison where offenders feel constantly under surveillance, without necessarily being under constant surveillance, would increase the self-control of the prison inhabitants. Constant surveillance also contributes to what Foucault calls normalization – the process of correcting the behavior of criminals. As this process should identify abnormal actions of criminals to bring them back to normal behavior, constant monitoring would provide the detailsnecessary in-depth. This development of the prison is a physical representation of society's move away from corporal punishment and a prospective perspective of rehabilitation. Foucault claimed that change in the penal system was rapid from 1780 to 1840. However, in reality, penal reform regarding corporal punishment began to develop around the 1600s, when the use of methods such as flogging and branding began to diminish. Furthermore, contrary to Foucault's assertions, not all sections of the modern penal system were in place by 1840. Through these assertions, Foucault clearly overlooks the importance of professions, such as psychiatrists, who are vital in determining modern sentences. Thus, there is some doubt as to the accuracy of his theories in their depiction of the modern justice system. On the surface, Foucault's theories seem completely different from those of Durkheim. However, both emphasize that punishment is a means of maintaining a functioning society. Foucault explains this by the fact that those who offend have broken the "contract" of society and that society as a whole strives to repair the broken agreement through punishment. Durkheim considers punishment as a manifestation of social solidarity and societies must preserve social bonds between them. This overlap of ideas increases the validity of their theories. Furthermore, Foucault clearly states that it was the riots surrounding the scaffolding that led to their abolition. However, other theorists argue that the severity and distribution of the riots were significantly less significant than Foucault claimed and were not effective enough to abolish punishment. This lack of accuracy casts doubt on the accuracy of Foucault's entire historical account of the decline of corporal punishment. Before any discussion, it is important to note that Weber did not specifically discuss punishment. However, his theories often constitute the underlying tone of the literature regarding punishment. Weberian theory holds that penal practices are historically guided by emotions and other irrational factors. Then, over time, society modernized and evolved into a system of what Weber calls bureaucratic rationality. The movement of society from religion and traditional authority, i.e. the king, to a belief in science, through a process of disenchantment, was intrinsic to this evolution. Power began to be monopolized by the state, creating a growing need for trained officials and administrative systems for the execution of criminal law. Consequently, the emotion that previously drove the penal system has faded and been replaced by a dehumanized bureaucratic organization. Clearly demonstrated by our modern justice system; authority is exercised by appointees rather than the public and all sentences are carried out in accordance with the law. As punishment receded from the public eye, so did the public expression of anger toward the crime. Additionally, official methods of discussing punishment with the public have become scientific and reflect the rationalization of punishment. It became necessary for those involved in sentencing to have specific knowledge and training, making punishment an elitist subject above public understanding. From this Weberian perspective, it can be argued that the decline of corporal punishment is not due to the rise of humanism, as Durkheim argued, but rather to the development of bureaucratized rationalism. The lackof emotion in the penal system means that there is no need to resort to excessive punishments based on revenge or other irrational factors that might have motivated corporal punishment in pre-Enlightenment times. Instead, there are predefined rules as to what punishment crimes deserve and even alternative punishments not prescribed by law require going through a bureaucratized system that ensures the punishment is always fair and relative to the crime. However, the rationalization never took full effect. When it comes to the penal system of punishment, there are still non-rational values ​​within the system. David Garland (1990) argues that courts still "openly express emotional attitudes" of outrage and condemnation, affecting penal institutions through budgets, sentence lengths, and parole. Although the administrative processes of bureaucratic organizations do help to diminish the influence of these factors, Garland (1990) argues that they only make conflicts more manageable without completely removing them from the system. After reviewing the theories of Durkheim, Foucault and Weber, we better understand how and why there was a decline in corporal punishment after the Enlightenment. Durkheim argued that the development of society from primitive to modern has increased awareness of the differences between people and their lives, so it is impossible to know the reasons for crimes and people are therefore less likely to resort to harsh corporal punishment . Foucault argued that it was popular riots and humanism that drove out corporal punishment and allowed confinement to become the main source of punishment. From a Weberian perspective, society moved from an age of emotion to an age of rational thought that reduced the reliance on excessive vengeful punishment. The failure to identify perspective is most accurate in explaining the decline of corporal punishment in Western Europe, as the three take very different perspectives; Durkheim starts from the point of view of the people and their desire for punishment, Weber considers the point of view of the bureaucratic organizations that control sentencing, and Foucault takes a more interactionist approach between the people and the state. Nevertheless, one can be sure that by examining these three key theorists they have a very comprehensive picture of why there was a decline in corporal punishment in Western Europe during the post-Enlightenment era. “A villain who truly deserves this horror. of all nature, condemned to no longer see the sky that he has outraged and to no longer live on the earth that he has defiled, above the punishing city hangs this iron spider; and the criminal who must be thus crucified by the new law is the parricide.” In the statement above, Vermeil describes corporal punishment, "the infliction of physical pain" on the body of a criminal, where the criminal would be hanged. in an iron cage so that everyone can witness this public theater of punishment. In modern times, such punishment would be considered horrific and inhumane, but before the Enlightenment, corporal punishment – ​​such as mutilation, flogging, branding – was a very common punitive practice. What caused this radical change in perspective? By considering the theories of Durkheim, Foucault, and Weber, one can develop a timeline of the changes in social beliefs and society that led to the changes in punishment law to create our modern penal system. Durkheim's criminological theories focused largely on the sources of social solidarity and the methodswhich ensure the proper functioning of society. Regarding punishment, Durkheim viewed crime as culturally defined. Therefore, a crime is not simply an act that breaks the law, but rather an act that disobeys the collective conscience of society. Collective consciousness being “the set of beliefs and feelings common to the average members of a society”. Additionally, Durkheim viewed punishment as symbolic and functional, serving to strengthen social bonds between members of society. Durkheim also describes two types of solidarity: mechanical and organic. Mechanical solidarity describes more primitive societies where common morals are based on religious beliefs and where relationships are forged and maintained through shared experiences and unity. The collective consciousness is very intense and rigid, due to its religious basis. Thus, when the collective is violated by crime, it catalyzes an intense hostile emotional reaction in the rest of society that demands vengeance from the offender. Therefore, corporal punishment is common because even a slight violation of the collective conscience is significant, so the violent and vengeful reaction within society is great. However, in more developed societies, based on organic solidarity, there is a separation from religion and an increase in moral diversity. Thus, the only common characteristic that forms the psychic bond between people is humanity. In such societies, they recognize the value of the individual, freedom and tolerance. Thus, social bonds evolved from a hostile reaction when violated to a calmer, reflexive response. Additionally, Durkheim sees a conflict in people's minds due to the rise of humanism. The morals that are violated and demand revenge when a crime is committed, are the same ones that create sympathy towards the punished offender. As a result, there is a decline in the use of corporal punishment as society evolves from mechanistic to organic solidarity. Because crime is no longer an act against God and the recognition of each member of a society having a unique life induces a reaction of sympathy towards those who are punished. Yet Durkheim completely ignores this theory of the evolution of mechanical and organic solidarity in his later writings. works. Potentially because if he held that organic solidarity is superior to mechanical solidarity, he could not support his claims. In fact, in his later work, Durkheim emphasizes the need for group symbols and rituals in an integrative society. Which can easily be interpreted as support for the conscious collective, the founding pillar of mechanical solidarity. How can we have confidence in the validity of his assertions if Durkheim himself contradicts them? Furthermore, Durkheim based his conclusions on societies that were very culturally different from Western societies to which he applied his theories, for example: the ancient Hebrews and the Aborigines. From these distant cultures he developed his view that punishment is the result of an intense emotional reaction to crime. Thus, calling into question the ecological validity of his theory of solidarity. Especially since Durkheim himself emphasizes the importance of culture in the definition of crime. Thus, these different cultures can behave in the manner described by Durkheim. It cannot be assumed that a Western culture will have the same response to crime or, therefore, punish in the same way. Michel Foucault has become the key theorist of the history of punishment. By examining the technologies of penal power and not just the social context ofAt the time, Foucault filled an important gap in penal analysis that theorists, such as Durkheim, had missed. Throughout the 17th century, the scaffold constituted an essential part of the penal system. It was used in legal proceedings to torture the criminal's impeachable evidence. It was the place of revenge; At the time, any criminal act was considered a direct act against the king and his will. The scaffold was thus a symbol of the king's power and his right to punish. However, by the late 1700s, the public event of these executions became a place where the public could riot and protest the use of inhumane punishment techniques, with the criminal even becoming a people's hero. Foucault argues that these riots were too disruptive to be ignored by those in power and were a turning point in criminal law that led to a decrease in violent corporal punishment. Additionally, there was an increase in property crimes, with an increase in personal property, homeowners were more vulnerable. Crimes such as poaching and rent evasion became less tolerable and the law, full of loopholes, appeared ineffective and too harsh. Reform was needed, based on a standardized process, with penalties tailored to the crime. Thanks to this reform, the power of punishment passed from the sovereign to the people. Thus, the increased regulation means that punishment is now about the maintenance of society and not the king's need to take revenge on those who defy him; encouraging a reduction in severe corporal punishment. From there, the method of confinement quickly developed as the primary method of punishment, moving from an era of embracing the spectacle of visible punishment to an era of structured confinement. The panopticon prison was, for Foucault, the ideal method of punishment; a prison where offenders feel constantly under surveillance, without necessarily being under constant surveillance, would increase the self-control of the prison inhabitants. Constant surveillance also contributes to what Foucault calls normalization – the process of correcting the behavior of criminals. As this process must identify the abnormal actions of criminals to return them to normal behavior, constant monitoring would provide the necessary in-depth details. This development of the prison is a physical representation of society's move away from corporal punishment and a prospective perspective of rehabilitation. Foucault claimed that change in the penal system was rapid from 1780 to 1840. However, in reality, penal reform regarding corporal punishment began to develop around the 1600s, when the use of methods such as flogging and branding began to diminish. Furthermore, contrary to Foucault's assertions, not all sections of the modern penal system were in place by 1840. Through these assertions, Foucault clearly overlooks the importance of professions, such as psychiatrists, who are vital in determining modern sentences. This therefore raises doubt as to the accuracy of his theories in their representation of the modern justice system. On the surface, Foucault's theories seem completely different from those of Durkheim. However, both emphasize that punishment is a means of maintaining a functioning society. Foucault explains this by the fact that those who offend have broken the "contract" of society and that society as a whole strives to repair the broken agreement through punishment. Durkheim considers punishment as a manifestation of social solidarity and societies must preserve social bonds between them. This overlap of ideas.