?Judicial and Correctional Ethics Paper assignment

Judicial and Correctional Ethics It should be 3-4 pages, double-spaced, in 12-pt. font, with standard margins. (Note: everything above the first line of your paper does not count towards the 3-page minimum.) Draw on both Foucault and Guenther in your response. follow instructions on the file below.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
?Judicial and Correctional Ethics Paper assignment
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Judicial and Correctional Ethics – Third Paper Assignment
Your third paper will be due on Wednesday, April 25th, in class. It should be 3-4 pages, doublespaced, in 12-pt. font, with standard margins. (Note: everything above the first line of your
paper does not count towards the 3-page minimum.) Draw on both Foucault and Guenther in
your response. See the document entitled ‘Paper Guidelines and Writing Tips’ to get a sense of
how a good paper should be composed.
Write on one of the following topics:
1.Choose one of the major theories of the justification of punishment we looked at:
utilitarianism, retributivism, or teleological retributivism. From the perspective you choose,
discuss whether the following practices of punishment can be justified: torture, panoptic
surveillance, and solitary confinement. Why, or why aren’t, these practices justified?
You may add capital punishment tart reading goes into more detail describing.
What is torture? Example with Guenther you don’t have to believe what you’re arguing BUT making the
best argument.
2) What are some of the unforeseen consequences of (a) panoptic surveillance and (b) solitary
confinement? Keep in mind that these consequences might affect not just the prisoner, but
others as well, and even society as a whole.
When talking about solitary confinement … want to consider Guenther analysis… person
explaining philosophical depth to the question Guenther cites his own examples.
NOTE: You may incorporate a discussion of Camus and capital punishment into your essay. For
instance, if you choose to answer #1, you may add capital punishment to the list of practices
that may or may not be justified in light of Camus’ perspective. However, discussion of Camus is
not required.
NOTE ALSO: References must be listed at the end of your essay. Bibliographical information for
Guenther’s and Camus’ pieces are available on the respective documents on Blackboard; for
Discipline and Punish the information is available on the syllabus. Failure to include references
will negatively affect your grade.
AND AS ALWAYS: Remember that the penalty for plagiarism is that you will receive no credit for
the assignment.
You must include both readngs discusses further more
“Foucault and Guenther’s camus
Notes 4/23
Camus arguments against capital punishment:

We do not believe in it as a deterrent.
It Is not effective as a deterrent
It sets a bad moral example
Capital punishment “claims to punish an always relative
Culpability by a definitive and irreparable punishment” p210
How alcohol proceeds a huge role Camus his point gov’t takes
bon petit Henri’, but in the misfortunes of ‘little Hans’. The Romance
ofthe Rose is written today by Mary Barnes; in the place oflancelot,
we have Judge Schreber.
It is often said that the model of a society that has individuals
as its constituent elements is borrowed from the abstract juridical
forms of contract and exchange. Mercantile society, according to
this view, is represented as a contractual association of isolated
juridical subjects. Perhaps. Indeed, the political theory of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often seems to follow this
schema. But it should not be forgotten that there existed at the same
period a technique for constituting individuals as correlative elements of power and knowledge. The individual is no doubt the
fictitious atom of an ‘ideological’ representation of society; but he is
also a reality fabricated by this specific technology of power that I
have called ‘discipline’. We must cease once and for all to describe
the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’,
it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact, power
produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and
rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be
gained of him belong to this production.
Is it not somewhat excessive to derive such power from the petty
machinations of discipline? How could they achieve effects of such
following, according to an order published at the end of the
century, were the measures to be taken when the plague
tionpeared in a town. 1
First, a strict spatial partitioning: the closing of the town and its
districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death,
killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct
,,.,,,.ters, each governed by an intendant. Each street is placed under
authority of a syndic, who keeps it under surveillance; if he
the street, he will be condemned to death. On the appointed
, everyone is ordered to stay indoors: it is forbidden to leave
pain of death. The syndic himself comes to lock the door of
each house from the outside; he takes the key with him and hands
over to the intendant of the quarter; the intendant keeps it until
end of the quarantine. Each family will have made its own
· ·ons; but, for bread and wine, small wooden canals are set up
the street and the interior of the houses, thus allowing each
to receive his ration without communicating with the supand other residents; meat, fish and herbs will be hoisted up
the houses with pulleys and baskets. If it is absolutely necessary
leave the house, it will be done in turn, avoiding any meeting.
Only the intendants, syndics and guards will move about the
streets and also, between the infected houses, from one corpse to
another, the ‘crows’, who can be left to die: these are ‘people of little
substance who carry the sick, bury the dead, clean and do many vile
and abject offices’. It is a segmented, immobile, frozen space. Each
individual is fixed in his place. And, if he moves, he does so at the
risk of his life, contagion or punishment.
Inspection functions ceaselessly. The gaze is alert everywhere: ‘A
·. considerable body of militia, commanded by good officers and men
. Panopticism
of substance’, guards at the gates, at the town hall and in every
quarter to ensure the prompt obedience of the people and the most
absolute authority of the magistrates, ‘as also to observe all disorder,
theft and extortion’. At each of the town gates there will be an
observation post; at the end of each street sentinels. Every day, the
intendant visits the quarter in his charge, inquires whether the
syndics have carried out their tasks, whether the inhabitants have
anything to complain of; they ‘observe their actions’. Every day,
too, the syndic goes into the street for which he is responsible;
stops before each house: gets all the inhabitants to appear at the
windows (those who live overlooking the courtyard will be allocated a window looking onto the street at which no one but they
may show themselves); he calls each of them by name; informs
himself as to the state of each and every one of them – ‘in which
respect the inhabitants will be compelled to speak the truth under
pain of death’; if someone does not appear at the window, the syndic
must ask why: ‘In this way he will find out easily enough whether
dead or sick are being concealed.’ Everyone locked up in his
cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing
himself when asked – it is the great review of the living and the
This surveillance is based on a system of permanent registration:
reports from the syndics to the intendants, from the intendants to
the magistrates or mayor. At the beginning of the ‘lock up’, the role
of each of the inhabitants present in the town is laid down, one by
one; this document bears ‘the name, age, sex of everyone, notwithstanding his condition’: a copy is sent to the intendant of the quarter,
another to the office of the town hall, another to enable the syndic
to make his daily roll call. Everything that may be observed during
the course of the visits- deaths, illnesses, complaints, irregularitiesis noted down and transmitted to the intendants and magistrates.
The magistrates have complete control over medical treatment; they
have appointed a physician in charge; no other practitioner may
treat, no apothecary prepare medicine, no confessor visit a sick
person without having received from him a written note ‘to prevent
anyone from concealing and dealing with those sick of the contagion,
unknown to the magistrates’. The registration of the pathological
must be constantly centralized. The relation of each individual to his
and to his death passes through the representatives of power,
registration they make of it, the decisions they take on it.
Five or six days after the beginning of the quarantine, the process
purifying the houses one by one is begun. All the inhabitants are
to leave; in each room ‘the furniture and goods’ are raised
the ground or suspended from the air; perfume is poured
the room; after carefully sealing the windows, doors and
the keyholes with wax, the perfume is set alight. Finally, the
house is closed while the perfume is consumed; those who
carried out the work are searched, as they were on entry, ‘in
presence of the residents of the house, to see that they did not
something on their persons as they left that they did not have
entering’. Four hours later, the residents are allowed to re-enter
This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in
the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the
movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded,
which an uninterrupted work of writing links the centre and
in which power is exercised without division, according
a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is conlocated, examined and distributed among the living beings,
sick and the dead – all this constitutes a compact model of the
lisciplinary mechanism. The plague is met by order; its function is
sort out every possible confusion: that of the disease, which is
when bodies are mixed together; that of the evil, which
increased when fear and death overcome prohibitions. It lays
for each individual his place, his body, his disease and his
his well-being, by means of an omnipresent and omniscient
that subdivides itself in a regular, uninterrupted way even
the ultimate determination of the individual, of what characterizes
of what belongs to him, of what happens to him. Against the
which is a mixture, discipline brings into play its power,
is one of analysis. A whole literary fiction of the festival grew
around the plague: suspended laws, lifted prohibitions, the
of passing time, bodies mingling together without respect,
lldividuals unmasked, abandoning their statutory identity and the
under which they had been recognized, allowing a quite
truth to appear. But there was also a political dream of the
plague, which was exactly its reverse: not the collective festival,
but strict divisions; not laws transgressed, but the penetration of
regulation into even the smallest details of everyday life through the
mediation of the complete hierarchy that assured the capillary functioning of power; not masks that were put on and taken off, but the
assignment to each individual of his ‘true’ name, his ‘true’ place, his
‘true’ body, his ‘true’ disease. The plague as a form, at once real
and imaginary, of disorder had as its medical and political correlative
discipline. Behind the disciplinary mechanisms can be read the
haunting memory of ‘contagions’, of the plague, of rebellions,
crimes, vagabondage, desertions, people who appear and disappear,
live and die in disorder.
If it is true that the leper gave rise to rituals of exclusion, which to
a certain extent provided the model for and general form of the
great Confinement, then the plague gave rise to disciplinary projects. Rather than the massive, binary division between one set of
people and another, it called for multiple separations, individualizing
distributions, an organization in depth of surveillance and control,
an intensification and a ramification of power. The leper was caught
up in a practice of rejection, of exile-enclosure; he was left to his
doom in a mass among which it was useless to differentiate; those
sick of the plague were caught up in a meticulous tactical partitioning in which individual differentiations were the constricting effects
of a power that multiplied, articulated and subdivided itself; the great
confinement on the one hand; the correct training on the other.
The leper and his separation; the plague and its segmentations. The
first is marked; the second analysed and distributed. The exile of
the leper and the arrest of the plague do not bring with them the
same political dream. The first is that of a pure community, the
second that of a disciplined society. Two ways of exercising power
over men, of controlling their relations, of separating out their
dangerous mixtures. The plague-stricken town, traversed throughout with hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing; the town
immobilized by the functioning of an extensive power that bears in
a distinct way over all individual bodies – this is the utopia of the
perfectly governed city. The plague (envisaged as a possibility at
least) is the trial in the course of which one may define ideally the
exercise of disciplinary power. In order to make rights and laws
function according to pure theory, the jurists place themselves in
imagination in the state of nature; in order to see perfect disciplines
functioning, rulers dreamt of the state of plague. Underlying disciplinary projects the image of the plague stands for all forms of
confusion and disorder; just as the image of the leper, cut off from
all human contact, underlies projects of exclusion.
They are different projects, then, but not incompatible ones. We
see them coming slowly together, and it is the peculiarity of the
nineteenth century that it applied to the space of exclusion of which
the leper was the symbolic inhabitant (beggars, vagabonds, madmen
and the disorderly formed the real population) the technique of
power proper to disciplinary partitioning. Treat ‘lepers’ as ‘plague
victims’, . project the subtle segmentations of discipline onto the
confused space of internment, combine it with the methods of analytical distribution proper to power, individualize the excluded, but
use procedures of individualization to mark exclusion – this is what
was operated regularly by disciplinary power from the beginning
of the nineteenth century in the psychiatric asylum, the penitentiary,
the reformatory, the approved school and, to some extent, the
hospital. Generally speaking, all the authorities exercising individual
control function according to a double mode; that of binary division
·. and branding (madfsane; dangerous/harmless; normal/abnormal);
and that of coercive assignment, of differential distribution (who he
is; where he must be; how he is to be characterized; how he is to be
recognized; how a constant surveillance is to be exercised over him
in an individual way, etc.). On the one hand, the lepers are treated as
plague victims; the tactics of individualizing disciplines are imposed
on the excluded; and, on the other hand, the universality of disciplinary controls makes it possible to brand the ‘leper’ and to bring
into play against him the dualistic mechanisms of exclusion. The
constant division between the normal and the abnormal, to which
every individual is subjected, brings us back to our own time, by
applying the binary branding and exile of the leper to quite different
objects; the existence of a whole set of techniques and institutions
for measuring, supervising and correcting the abnormal brings into
play the disciplinary mechanisms to which the fear of the plague
gave rise. All the mechanisms of power which, even today, are
disposed around the abnormal individual, to brand him and to alter
Bentham’s Panopticon is the architectural figure of this composithe principle on which it was based: at the periphery,
tion. We
an annular building; at the centre, a tower; this tower is pierced with
wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring; the peripheric building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole
width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside,
corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to the other.
All that is needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower
and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man,
a worker or a schoolboy. By the effect of backlighting, one can
observe from the tower, standing out precisely against the light,
the small captive shadows in the cells of the periphery. They are
like so many cages, s0 many small theatres, in which each actor is
alone, perfectly individualized and constantly visible. The panoptic
mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short, it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of its three functions – to enclose, to
deprive of light and to hide – it preserves only the first and eliminates the other two. Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture
better than darkness, which ultimately protected. Visibility is a trap.
To begin with, this made it possible- as a negative effect- to
avoid those compact, swarming, howling masses that were to be
found in places of confinement, those painted by Goya or described
by Howard. Each individual, in his place, is securely confined to a
cell from which he is seen from the front by the supervisor; but the
side walls prevent him from coming into contact with his companions. He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information,
never a subject in communication. The arrangement of his room,
opposite the central tower, imposes on him an axial visibility; but
the divisions of the ring, those separated cells, imply a lateral
invisibility. And this invisibility is a guarantee of order. If the inmates are convicts, there is no danger of a plot, an attempt at
collective escape, the planning of new crimes for the future, bad
reciprocal influences; if they are patients, there is no danger of
him, are composed of those two forms from which they distantly
Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate
a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its
; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual
exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a
machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent
of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be
caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the
bearers. To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the
prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little,
for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much,
because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham
laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the
tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon.
Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being
looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always
so. In order to make the presence or absence of the inspector
unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in their cells, cannot even see a
shadow, Bentham envisaged not only venetian blinds on the
··windows of the central observation hall, but, on the inside, partitions
that intersected the hall at right angles and, in order to pass from
one quarter to the other, not doors but zig-zag openings; for the
slightest noise, a gleam of light, a brightness in a half-opened door
would betray the presence of the guardian. 2 The Panopticon is a
6cH54) …
Purchase answer to see full

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15