CRM2306 - 20th June

docx

School

University of Ottawa *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2306

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CaptainTank1330

Hi everyone so in this very first unit what we're going to be exploring is the types of prisons that exist in contemporary society, but in this part one we're gonna think through how they are different from prisons of the past whose main function was merely to detain people, and so one of the things that i want us to be really cognizant about is that prisons have always existed in one form or another but at a certain point the purpose of prison became something more and there was a belief that the prison itself could become an instrument for reforming individuals correcting individuals exercising disciplinary power over individuals not just merely spaces for depriving people of their liberty so one of the things that we're going to see in this unit and will become increasingly evident as we move through the course is that prisons are not inert institutions and that's what Foucault maintains in the first book section that i've asked you to read. He says the prison is an active field in which projects, experiments, improvements and investigations have proliferated. So Foucault suggests that prison reform occurs in concert or in tandem with the very functioning of the prison itself so he maintains that prison reform appears to form part of the functioning of prison because the two things are bound together through history. What we'll look at are different systems or types of imprisonment and take, we'll sort of do a chronological history and then we'll sort of think through how that's impacted what we've come to accept as imprisonment today so all this to say, and this is something i really do want you to keep in mind, is that we've always tinkered around with this concept of space of the prison but what's going to differentiate what we do now and what we started to do several hundred years ago from now. What had occurred earlier than that is that it is this instrument or an apparatus for correcting or we'll talk about it in terms of rehabilitation today, we can see a variety of punishments that would be enacted against people who were accused or convicted of wrongdoing and so if we think about something like corporal punishment, that obviously through history has been the most frequent form of punishment here in Canada, whipping or flogging were punishments that were used both outside the prison but also inside the prison to enforce rules and were actually part of the sentences for various offenses in early versions of the Canadian Criminal Code like rape, assault. It would also be a mechanism through which you'd be humiliated because you're forever marked by such a brand and Foucault writes about this at the beginning of Discipline and Punish. I've only asked you to read one chapter and I know it's sometimes a hard slog but what he's sort of showing is what came before and led to the birth of the prison. He starts off by talking about public spectacles, public torture. These would be

sort of punishments that would be done in a public square so that people could come and witness your punishment and you might be held there for days, you could just be held in some sort of cell that would be accessible to the public for them to engage with you and obviously we know that executions were things that were public as well. What's interesting about all of this is there was definitely an emphasis on enacting punishment through an individual's body, doing things to someone's physical self as a punishment. What we're gonna see next is this definitely changes as we start to take punishment indoors and locate punishment within the confines of a specific space that we call prison. Yes there were prisons that were used as a mechanism to detain people like i said that was part of an early punishment system in the Western world and also elsewhere but yeah at this point what we do see is that early punishments really focused on an individual's body and one of the things that you know people sort of focus on is how humiliation was a big component of this because there's a relation of power embedded within these kinds of public punishments and so you need spectators to witness the power of the sovereign. What's so important about these kinds of spectacles is that the problem ends up being that in having the public witness these punishments, and some of these might be very gruesome, is that the public might revolt against the authority figure right. The public itself might start to think that the sentence is unjust or the laws themselves are problematic, arbitrary or there might be such an atmosphere of carnival in and around these public spectacles that the public ends up rioting right. So we start to shift how it is that we're going to punish people and we're going to move some of this punishment indoors and imbue in this punishment a different kind of meaning. So one of the things to keep in mind is that if you start to get people interested in the crimes that these individuals have committed, you're sort of turning individuals into celebrities which is not necessarily what authorities wanted in making this punishment public. The solution was to take punishment inside and away from the prying eyes of the public but social reformers, penal reformers started to see that there are some definite problems to how these spaces operated and so one of the basic problems with these spaces was that everyone would be warehoused within them so regardless of the crime an individual had commit, regardless of an individual's gender or age or mental capacity, mental fitness everyone was being kept in these spaces in mass or communal cells and so these would be spaces that would be really overcrowded. Also as a prisoner you were not necessarily guaranteed any sort of food and

clothing. Prison reform societies took up this cause that people shouldn't have to necessarily beg through the bars or windows of the jail for food. In Canada when you hear the names John Howard and Elizabeth Frye those are both prisoner activists and they were both real historical figures who took up the cause of prison reform you know in the 1700s. One of the first problems that they identify, and that's related to the fact that everyone was sort of warehoused together, was that prisoners would be corrupted through contamination so the fact that there would be people in there of all different sorts and they wouldn't be separated into individual cells and they wouldn't be separated according to age or gender or even the types of crime that they committed could actually lead to people who had commit very minor crimes coming into contact with people who commit very serious crimes and this could lead to a contamination of those individuals so there was a fear that people could come out worse. Or if you had men and women together and you know there was prison rapes happening or there were you know people taking advantage of children then again there was this feeling that people would leave these spaces worse off than they had been before. The second problem with these early prisons that was identified by prison reformers was that people were going to be corrupted by the fact that they weren't doing anything productive while they were being contained within these spaces so prison reformers said there was the corruption by indolence that would occur. What we're going to see next is based upon these two problems that were identified by penal reformers. Prisons start to change right, what goes on in those spaces and what is expected of prisoners starts to change. At the same time too you start to see the emergence of classical criminology so this type of thinking starts to really emphasize that the law is prime right, so there's this emphasis on developing a codified system of laws and within that codified system of laws you're also going to have a catalog of appropriate punishments. People like Beccaria, who worked and wrote in the 1700s, are discussing how the events that have taken place thus far have been quite irrational. Beccaria himself experienced brutal and arbitrary treatment at the hands of the Jesuits, with whom he trained. He examined the system of trial by ordeal and church-led inquisitions, considering them to be barbaric. Looking at the early punishments we previously discussed, Beccaria argued that judges were influenced by their personal beliefs

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

and ruled in a capricious manner based on their desires and whims. For individuals like Beccaria and Bentham, who represent the classical school of criminology, the goal is to establish a logical and rational system. They believe that the system needs to be reformed, and in order to achieve that, laws must be developed to bring consistency to crimes. The behavior labeled as criminal, the corresponding judgments, and the subsequent penal practices need to be unified. Beccaria created a classification of crimes, stating that any behavior falling outside of that classification should not be considered criminal. According to Beccaria, the true measure of a crime is whether it harms the social contract. He argues that crimes should not be judged based on how sinful the acts are or the intentions of the individuals involved. The social standing of the victim should also not influence whether something is identified as criminal. This perspective highlights how Beccaria, as well as Bentham, emphasize the need for a code that focuses on the act itself (actus reus) rather than the intent of an individual (mens rea). The law should specify the punishment for a particular crime, enabling individuals to calculate the irrationality of committing that crime. The aim is to eliminate the capricious discretion that judges have exercised in the past. As individuals become familiar with codified laws and punishments are consistently applied, the classical criminologists believe that the frequency of criminality in society will decrease. Ignorance and uncertainty about possible punishments will diminish, resulting in a decrease in criminality. An individual's choice of crime may be influenced by the fear of facing specific punishments. Classical criminology places a strong focus on deterrence, moving away from the notion that the law should solely be used to repair harm or enact retribution. Classical criminologists are interested in the fact that the law is something that can exercise deterrence, both general deterrence and specific deterrence. So, like I said, there's an idea that if people know what the laws are and they know what the associated punishments for breaking the laws are, then society, as a whole, people as a group, will be deterred from committing crime. But also, having the law and outline what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior and what the punishments are will mean that has been internalized so effectively by prisoners. So, Foucault maintains that part of what's important about panopticism is that the prison becomes this mechanism for exercising power through surveillance. Right? The prison introduces criminal justice into relations of knowledge and I'll explain that in a bit. I know that sounds really confusing, but the prison becomes another mechanism for accumulating knowledge about prisoners. Obviously,

observation becomes important and exercising power. So, like I said, we're gonna survey people, right? Watch them, monitor them. But the prison is also a place where an inmate's observations and those observations are noted, right? So, this is how it's going to become a site of knowledge. We're going to document their behavior, their state of mind. So, observation is important or just reminding people that they're observable, right? There's always the potential to see them. And that's, um, part of this exercise of power. But for Foucault, the panopticon is also a laboratory, right? It can start to become a place where we record what we see so we can train or correct people, conduct experiments, try out medicines and monitor their effects, use different punishments on different people and see which ones are more effective. You have this captive population; they're always potentially observable, and so you start to be able to do things to that population of people in ways that you haven't before. So, again, you can see how thinking about power in these ways means that panopticism, as a discussion of how power is exercised, does not even have to be located within prisons at all. And we'll sort of come back to this later in the course when we think about how prisons resemble other total, other institutions in society. So, Foucault, in the book, in the chapter I've asked you to read, outlines two different models of North American imprisonment. And so, these are going to be the things that have really impacted what we do here in Canada. And so, in this first system of imprisonment that emerges, again, we're sort of talking right now in the 1700s, this emerged in Pennsylvania. That was the center for American prison reform. So, in Philadelphia, in the 1790s, the Quakers, who had come to the US from Britain, developed this idea of the penitentiary. So, William Penn, who was the founder of Pennsylvania, had been imprisoned in England for his religious beliefs because he was a Quaker. And so, he had some definite ideas on how prisons and punishments should be more humane. So, he would have had the same sorts of issues with what he saw to be the problems of corruption and indolence that other prison reformers had. If we can enact punishment in a swift, certain manner, then people who commit crime and then face the punishment, they'll be deterred from doing that again, right? And that's what specific deterrence is as well. But again, part of their calculus is that there has to be a certain proportionality when we're thinking about calculating the punishment that's most appropriate for the crime. The prison introduces criminal justice into relations of knowledge, and I'll explain that in a bit. I know that sounds really confusing, but the prison becomes another

mechanism for accumulating knowledge about prisoners. Obviously, observation becomes important in exercising power. So, like I said, we're gonna survey people, watch them, and monitor them. But the prison is also a place where an inmate's observed, and those observations are noted, right? So, this is how it's going to become a site of knowledge. We're going to document their behavior, their state of mind. So, observation is important, or just reminding people that they're observable. Right? There's always the potential to see them, and that's part of this exercise of power. But for Foucault, the panopticon is also a laboratory, right? It can start to become a place where we record what we see, so we can train or correct people, conduct experiments, try out medicines, and monitor their effects. Use different punishments on different people and see which ones are more effective. You have this captive population. They're always potentially observable, and so you start to be able to do things to that population of people in ways that you haven't before. So again, you can see how thinking about power in these ways means that panopticism as a discussion of how power is exercised does not even have to be located within prisons at all. And we'll sort of come back to this later in the course when we think about how prisons resemble other total other institutions in society. So, Foucault, in the book and the chapter I've asked you to read, outlines two different models of North American imprisonment. These are going to be the things that have really impacted what we do here in Canada. In this first system of imprisonment that emerged (again, we're sort of talking right now in the 1700s), this emerged in Pennsylvania, which was the center for American prison reform. So, in Philadelphia in the 1790s, the Quakers, who had come to the US from Britain, developed this idea of the penitentiary. William Penn, who was the founder of Pennsylvania, had been imprisoned in England for his religious beliefs because he was a Quaker. So, he had some definite ideas on how prisons and punishments should be more humane. He would have had the same sorts of issues with what he saw to be the problems of corruption and indolence that other prison reformers had. These Quakers, these penal reformers, converted what was at the time the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, and what they wanted to do with this particular style of imprisonment is compel prisoners to become penitent through reflection on their wrongdoings. Right? You can see how this initiates this idea of the penitentiary. "Penitent" means to feel regret or express remorse. And so, this whole style changes, right? So, a movement away from this idea of the prison as a warehouse, a place to just merely contain everybody who's broken the law. This new style is going to suggest that people are going to this space for the particular reason of feeling remorse, feeling regret. The Quakers believe that these individuals had sinned, and so prison should be a space that's going to afford individuals the opportunity to express their remorse, express their

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

penance, or become penitent for what they've done. And the means through which this was going to be facilitated was through solitary confinement. So, it was through this process of being isolated that individuals would end up having the opportunity to be reflective. Um, so I mean, these models of prison were, um, spaces where prisoners would only be known by their prisoner number. There was no visitation. People couldn't receive visitors. People were kept completely separate from one another. Maybe there was the possibility that priests, ministers, or guards that could provide some sort of vocational training instruction would be allowed to interact with prisoners. But when prisoners left their cells, they wore masks so they couldn't see other prisoners or even their jailers. They exercised in areas all alone. There was a focus, maybe on solitary work that prisoners could complete within their cells. Obviously, this placed some limitations on the type of work that inmates could perform. So, maybe certain textile work like sewing or weaving, shoe making. We'll see how this becomes potentially one of the explanations for why this model becomes increasingly obsolete as the years go on. Prisoners in other states were able to work in factories or mass-produce goods. But yes, prisoners would be strongly encouraged to read the Bible. The benefits of this model were touted as leading to the opportunity for the true rehabilitation of the individual. The silent architecture, the total isolation that was afforded by this model of prison would provide people the opportunity to confront their conscience. Right, so you become submissive to your conscience and the definite powerfulness of being completely isolated. So, Foucault even talks about on page 237 how the focus of this system of imprisonment was that people's morality would be awakened or fundamentally changed. It was less about changing people's attitudes and more about changing who they are in this fundamental way. It's interesting because Foucault also talks about, and he's using quotes from other authors, how if people are completely isolated, then the power of the voice of authority becomes even more total. If you're completely isolated from all socialization, from all interaction with others, then what your jailers say is going to assume an even greater authority. For the Pennsylvania type of reformers, this was going to lead to better people because people would recognize what they'd done is wrong and they would be fundamentally altered so that they would never engage in this kind of behavior again. A competing model that was operating in the US at the same time and also becomes the predominant model here in Canada is the Auburn model. It's called the Auburn model because it was first tried at the New York State Prison at

Auburn, New York. So, it's named after the place. As prison populations begin to grow and individual cells for solitary confinement are not feasible, and you can see how the architectural designs for Pennsylvania models would be quite expensive to build if everyone's got to be kept separate all the time, regardless of whether or not they're in their cells or they're exercising, plus they have to be taken around by guards because their view is blocked, you can see how this becomes something that might limit the feasibility of the Pennsylvania model. So, the Auburn model of imprisonment allowed that individuals would do things en masse, right, together. We can see why potentially the Auburn model might have taken hold here in North America. Prison labor can be used to produce goods that can be sold on the open market, so prisons themselves could actually turn a profit. In some states, prisons actually paid money into public coffers, so taxpayers themselves benefited from the profit made by prisons. Additionally, prisons themselves can use the products they produce to maintain the smooth functioning of the prison, creating a sense of self-sufficiency. Some people have suggested that one of the reasons why the Pennsylvania model was more embraced in the UK and Europe is that there were labor shortages. They didn't actually need prisoners to do labor because there was a labor surplus. On the other hand, in the US, there was a labor shortage, so prisoners were needed to perform certain labor functions to justify their housing in these spaces. Foucault discusses on page 239 the conflicts between these models—the Pennsylvania model and the Auburn model. One of the conflicts is the concept of conversion or changing someone's morality. The Pennsylvania model focuses on fundamentally transforming individuals' morality, whereas the Auburn model emphasizes changing attitudes and getting prisoners to participate in the rhythms of an industrial society. Another fundamental conflict is the medical aspect. There has been a lot of emphasis on whether solitary confinement leads to insanity, although it is recognized as a form of torture. The perception that the Pennsylvania model would lead to insanity, suicides, and death contributed to the shift away from it in North America. However, it is worth noting that solitary confinement is still used frequently, although there have been recent efforts to limit its use.

The architectural and administrative conflict revolves around which method offers the best opportunities for surveillance and governance. Both models aim to achieve coercive individualization and terminate any relationship not sanctioned by prison authorities or arranged according to a hierarchy. Economic conflict plays a significant role as well, considering which method is the cheapest to maintain and provides the most economic benefit for society. Foucault wants us to recognize that both models strive to reform and individualize prisoners coercively. However, economic reasons have primarily influenced the ascendancy of one model over the other. The Pennsylvania model's architecture and administration would lead to more expensive prisons, requiring more jailers to supervise prisoners, whereas the Auburn model allows for more profitable activities and potential self-sufficiency. It is crucial to understand that reform is not a result of incidental criticisms but a constant set of operational instructions within the theory of the prison. The assumption that we can slightly change or tinker with prisons to come up with something fundamentally better is problematic, and Foucault's discussion helps elucidate the resistance to change within these institutions. Throughout the course, the goal will be to problematize imprisonment as a form of punishment and interrogate its true purpose. Merely being nicer to prisoners or making minor adjustments from the inside will not significantly improve people's experiences within the prison system. This recurring theme will be explored in Part Two of the course.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version