4 ms·

400 years ago justice systems were based on the desires of the crown and aristocracy and the needs of the aristocracy demanded they be able to buy their way out

by Steko 12y ago

400 years ago justice systems were based on the desires of the crown and aristocracy and the needs of the aristocracy demanded they be able to buy their way out of murdering common folk but have their precious wealth protected at all costs. Murder of the ruling class was, obvs a different story [1]. Among other things the strengthening of the middle class is what slowly, reverses this. [1] http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~felluga/punish.html http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~felluga/punish.html {Opening passage of Foucault's Discipline and Punish, recounting the drawing and quartering of Robert-Francois Damiens for attempted regicide.}

clairity 12y ago
i've only read a bit of foucault but one of his fascinating expositions is the mechanisms of discipline that run through us unconsciously (i've heard it termed micropower). it's tangentially related to the panopticon, which is what many people think of in relation to foucault. foucault makes claims that normative forces (micropower) are more powerful than direct coersion. micropower breaks down when individuals start othering people (contrasting and disassociating others from themselves), particularly those we call criminals (recall zimbardo's prison experiment and milgram's as well). reformation efforts in the criminal justice system, then, have been focused on replacing punishment and coercive tactics with rehabilitative ones to bring offenders back into the fold so that normative forces rather than coercive ones can act to create social stability. but our justice system has a ways to go on this front. minor offenses like petty theft can lead to months/years in prison and acute othering (yet we don't even prosecute those who brought our financial system to its knees and millions of livelihoods along with it). instead sentences for most offenses should not separate offenders by putting them into jail but instead should put them in the middle of a normative group of people. this surely requires a high degree of collective empathy and compassion though. but at least we no longer have debtors prison...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
etrevino 12y ago
Okay, okay, okay. No no. I did my dissertation on these exact same documents working with these same people. This is NOT about upholding a class-based system. The elite could not and did not buy their way out of anything any more than a base criminal could. A wealthy elite may be able to hide a crime more effectively, but once the crime was known it was extraordinarily important for the elite to be seen as fair arbiters. Here's the deal: the elite knew that they were ruling with the consent of the lower orders (classes don't come in as a useful classification tool until the rise of the Bourgeoisie), so they were concerned to preserve their status as the dispensers of justice. This meant that in many ways an elite charged with a crime would be held to a higher standard than your typical commoner and the punishment may be more aggravated. Check out the case of the Earl Ferrers. He's a great example of an elite figure facing the same punishment as everyone else. (to expand on your Foucault example: an attempted murder of the king is not the same as an attempted murder of a nobleman. The king was considered God's representative on Earth. Foucault's point, in any case, was about the aggravated nature of the punishment.)

by Steko 12y ago

clairity 12y ago

i've only read a bit of foucault but one of his fascinating expositions is the mechanisms of discipline that run through us unconsciously (i've heard it termed micropower). it's tangentially related to the panopticon, which is what many people think of in relation to foucault. foucault makes claims that normative forces (micropower) are more powerful than direct coersion. micropower breaks down when individuals start othering people (contrasting and disassociating others from themselves), particularly those we call criminals (recall zimbardo's prison experiment and milgram's as well). reformation efforts in the criminal justice system, then, have been focused on replacing punishment and coercive tactics with rehabilitative ones to bring offenders back into the fold so that normative forces rather than coercive ones can act to create social stability. but our justice system has a ways to go on this front. minor offenses like petty theft can lead to months/years in prison and acute othering (yet we don't even prosecute those who brought our financial system to its knees and millions of livelihoods along with it). instead sentences for most offenses should not separate offenders by putting them into jail but instead should put them in the middle of a normative group of people. this surely requires a high degree of collective empathy and compassion though. but at least we no longer have debtors prison...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

etrevino 12y ago

Okay, okay, okay. No no. I did my dissertation on these exact same documents working with these same people. This is NOT about upholding a class-based system. The elite could not and did not buy their way out of anything any more than a base criminal could. A wealthy elite may be able to hide a crime more effectively, but once the crime was known it was extraordinarily important for the elite to be seen as fair arbiters. Here's the deal: the elite knew that they were ruling with the consent of the lower orders (classes don't come in as a useful classification tool until the rise of the Bourgeoisie), so they were concerned to preserve their status as the dispensers of justice. This meant that in many ways an elite charged with a crime would be held to a higher standard than your typical commoner and the punishment may be more aggravated. Check out the case of the Earl Ferrers. He's a great example of an elite figure facing the same punishment as everyone else. (to expand on your Foucault example: an attempted murder of the king is not the same as an attempted murder of a nobleman. The king was considered God's representative on Earth. Foucault's point, in any case, was about the aggravated nature of the punishment.)