Punishment Policy Analysis: Choose two of the social Theories (Essay Sample)

Punishment Policy Analysis
Name
Institution
Punishment Policy Analysis
The use of punishment as a reprimand for unbecoming behavior has for eons been a basic feature of human society. All types of offences; social, legal, religious or behavioral offences have always been frowned upon and the frowning mostly expressed through the use of punishment. This need has always been informed by the need for self-preservation. The society has always created rules that will best insure that it is not a threat and created punishment as a tool to enforce these rules. This is an ideal that has been imported into a modern punishment mode termed as solitary confinement. However, the ideal that inform the need for a punishment have always differed and solitary confinement has not escaped the scrutiny. Two scholars, Foucault and Durkheim offer conflicting ideals on the need for solitary confinement. Though both tend to agree that solitary confinement is a reality, it is Durkheim who gives a more plausible explanation why it is also viable.
Durkheim is credited with forwarding the philosophical analysis upon which solitary confinement is based. He opines categorically that any punishment that the society inflicts is meant to express an ideal or value that the society as a whole believes in. Durkheim (1983), first examines how human being have evolved as far as punishment is concerned. He asserts that some time ago society punished for the sake of pain and vengeance. It aimed at gaining nothing from the infliction of the punishment. Society by then could be said to have punished to avenge. There was the need to cause the pain and relieve the desire to cause the offender equal; if not more pain than that he caused the society through his actions. That is why death punishments were made painful whereas it is clear that they all aimed at causing death. It made no difference on how it was made as long as it ended with death. It is on the same grounds that thieves were not only required to return the taken property. They were required to pay it back in double or triple portions.
Durkheim (1983) further acknowledges that this system was riddled with problems. This is because the effects of a punishment go far beyond affecting the offender. It has a toll on the family and the society and state in general. For example, the son of a person who was hanged in public is likely to adopt a very negative view towards the society for the rest of life. It would not be a surprise if he turned a delinquent and anti-societal value in future. With this understanding in mind, society has changed its view on punishment. According to Durkheim (), society no longer punishes to offend. Things have changed ad society now punishes to protect itself. The punishment is not geared towards satisfying some vengeful cravings inherent in man. Rather the punishment is a long-term strategy meant to create and sustain law and order in the society. By meting punishment on the offenders, the society is able to scare off any would be offender from acting on his evil thoughts. The aim is to save as a warning to would be offenders from attempting what they intend to do. This is a view that McConnaughey (2012) agrees with. She views punishment as a means of teaching g and enforcing norms in the society. It is a way of teaching and directing people on how they should behave in the society. This view seems to suggest that punishment is far beyond the offender. It should have a benefit on the society. It is far greater than just punishing the offender or scaring thus who would wish to follow him down this trend. The far greater aim is to maintain the social order, bring solidarity and cohesion in the society thus creating a very well sustained and long lasting society.
Durkheim (1983) employs the use of religion to explain how punishment is aimed at achieving the bigger societal good. This is an example that another scholarFerrante (2008)finds appropriate for this situation. . First he asserts that one characteristic of all religions is that they work to unite people toward a common purpose. It brings about solidarity and cohesion towards a common religious deity. Secondly, religion has the ability to offer comfort in to people in times of social disturbance. Most importantly, religion has the ability of alleviating people above their individualistic desires. It teaches to first put the deity above your personal desires and bodily desires. For example, religion requires you to overcome you temptations to fornicate not because the government will punish you but because the deity will see you and anger over you. However, Durkheim (1983) asserts that if we are to agree that all religions are true we should note that it is human beings who determine and govern most of religious practices. It is them who determine what is holy and what is unholy. It is the same beings who determine what and how one should behave before the deity, and how to adore, praise and thank the deity. Basically what Durkheim (1983) tries to put across is that all religion are made and governed by men. The deity has little say on what we deem holy or unholy. These are worldlyorganizations that, at inception, were meant to govern and sustain the society not adore and uplift a deity. It is only that they have never died out. In fact, people will always turn to religion whenever great calamities that they can never control arise. In Durkheim’s view, the real object of worship is the society not a deity. He thus views solitary confinement as one way in which an individual can be made to understand that societal needs comes before individual desires. Through solitary confinement, individuals are known to lose a sense of reality. It becomes hard for them to even recognize themselves. In his view, Durkheim (1983) seems to assert that it is the reality that is more important than individual convictions. No matter how strongly you believe in your ability to live and operate on your own, without the society you cannoteffectively understand yourself. Thus it is important to use any form of punishment to curb disrupting the societal order.
Durkheim (1983)therefore offers the most plausible reasoning in support of solitary confinement. It is, just like all other punishments, aimed at achieving society values and solidarity. It is offered as a means of ensuring that the big punishment netted out in court is achieved. This is especially needed when the offender is resistant to this. It is therefore of no impact who offers it. Still in the name of societal good, it would be imprudent to move the prisoner to court to determine whether he needs confinement or not. This is strictly an administrative mandate.
Foucault (1995) has a different view on punishment from that expressed by Durkheim.According to Foucault (1995), punishment is aimed to compelling the individual offender into following the already surviving societal beliefs. This is unlike Durkheim who believes that punishment aims at maintaining the societal cohesion. In his assertions, he finds it prudent to examine how the system of punishment has developed in stages over the years. The ancient mode of punishment was more geared towards exerting physical pains. For example a hand would be cut if one stole. A leg would be cut if one trespassed. There was no benefit to gain from such punishments but hey had to be as the society valued infliction of such pain. As the years rolled, Foucault (1995)asserts that the society developed a system of punishment that more or less aimed at exposing the offender to the mass as he was being punished. Its aim was to influence the people’s mind in order not to offend again. In his opinion it was a way of controlling the minds of individuals. The idea was that with the use of physical pain and inflictions, an individual’s mind can be made to submit to societal needs. The physical pain can compel and ...