Amritpal Bath .
LS 160 Sec 104 .
SID 14875089 .
GSI: Pablo .
Words: 2,191 .

Essay Topic 1 - Revision

	The punishments described in Mona Lynch's article and Stuart Banner's book depict the attitudes towards punishment in two very distinct eras.  Lynch's The Disposal of Inmate #85721 follows a style of execution that we have come to expect today, a sterile, bureaucratized procedure.  The numerous executions described in Banner's The Death Penalty differ greatly from this type of procedure.  They consist of big, chaotic shows put on in front of hundreds or thousands of spectators.  There are various theories that have been put forth to explain some or all of this change, by theorists such as Michael Foucault, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim.  These theories cite more "advanced" society, scientific advancements, and more as underlying reasons for this dramatic change in penology.
	The most obvious difference that is seen, aside from the effects of the punishments, is that of the punishments themselves.  In both cases the literature is describing the execution of convicted criminals, but the methods of execution used could not be any more different.  Most of the punishments described in Banner's book are hangings performed in front of an audience of hundreds, if not thousands of citizens.  Some of the other forms of punishment included burning at the stake, or dismemberment.  The latter two are obviously very painful methods of execution, but even the first method often times caused great pain.  It was well known at the time that hangings did not always go as planned.  Many times the hanging did not break the neck and cause immediate death, but instead simply choked the person to death over a period of time.  This was definitely a painful death, as the hanged and subsequently "resurrected" Joseph Taylor remarked in 1788 when he described "a Pain in [his] Eyes which seemed to be burned by two Balls of Fire" (Banner, 85).  So all of these methods were confirmed to cause great pain, and yet they were still used over and over as ways of meting out justice. 
	Contrasting this with a 20th century execution such as that of Arthur Ross, described in Mona Lynch's article, one sees that the setting and the actual event are completely opposite from what took place a couple hundred years ago.  Here the execution is done in a sterile looking environment, not out in public on the scaffold.  There are no humongous crowds of gawking spectators, instead only a small number of state and prison officials, along with those interested parties who have been allowed to witness the event.  The main purpose of the event, the punishment, is just as different - it consists of a three stage lethal injection, painstakingly designed to cause the least amount of discomfort possible to the prisoner.  This type of execution is worlds apart from what is witnessed in the 17th and 18th century executions described above.
	Another feature of capital punishment that has changed is the publicity of the event.  In earlier times, punishment actually was just that, an event.  It was something that the whole city and even neighboring cities would come to watch.  Sometimes they even drew spectators from nearby states.  The officials in charge of the executions actually encouraged this and hoped that as many people as possible would show up, as they made use of this opportunity to further their  own purposes.  The events were seen as ways to deter future criminals, by showing them the pain and anguish they themselves would have to go through if they ever committed any crimes and were caught.  Ministers took full advantage of these chances to preach to their flocks, and extolled the virtues of leading good, crime-free, religious lives to all of the audience members.  Some even sold books about the event and made significant amounts of money from the sales.  The prisoner also had a part in this tradition of speaking, as most of the condemned men and women chose to give some words of caution to the people in the audience.  Generally these were benevolent words, intended to try and keep others from suffering the same fate as themselves.
	Once again, however, the execution of Arthur Ross was the exact opposite.  This execution was not much of an event, as there was no fanfare over the whole process.  There were no throngs of spectators crowding around to get a look at the prisoner, but instead only "the standard number of people present - between 40 and 50" (Lynch, 19).  Even these few people that were here to witness such a rare event were not expected to be fully interested in the procedure.  This is proven by the necessity for the neighboring gas chamber's windows to be boarded up, so as to prevent the witnesses from looking away from the lethal injection and peeking into the then obsoleted gas chamber, as had been done by some in past occasions.
	According to Emile Durkheim, this change in both the amount of punishment and the type of punishment is a result of the change in society's collective consciousness.  This implies that there is a shared sentiment among all of society, and that most people agree with this sentiment, with regards to which actions should be punishable, how they should be punished, and so on.  Durkheim's Law of Quantitative Change states that in more "primitive" societies, "the intensity of punishment is the greater" (Lukes & Scull, 102).  The reason for this is that these primitive societies tend to to rely heavily on religion as a justification of the ruling party and their rules for governing.  Therefore, violations of these religious rules are treated very harshly.  This leads to the violations of the majority of these rules being punished by death, as these were the worst sorts of crimes.  In the relatively rare case that a crime committed was even worse than this, the punishment was taken even further, and justice was served with an "aggravated death sentence" such as dismemberment or burning at the stake (Lukes & Scull, 108).  This meant that other religions which were not so heavily influenced by religion, those that were considered less serious, had to be punished by less severe forms, such as imprisonment and/or penal servitude.  Durkheim's Law of Qualitative Change states that over time, imprisonment became the norm for punishment of most crimes.  This is a direct result of the collective consciousness changing.  As a result of the more advanced societies being more secular than based on religious rule, it makes sense that religious violations ceased to be treated as violations of law, and thus the punishments associated with those former crimes also disappeared.  These punishments were not reproduced elsewhere in the penal code, but instead took a back seat to the now more common imprisonment types of punishments.  For the few crimes that remained punished in capital forms, the actual punishment was not a pain-inducing event meant to exact revenge on the religious blasphemer, but instead a relatively pain-free method of taking the life of the worst offenders of society.
	Karl Marx poses a different theory, that it is not necessarily the beliefs of society that changed, but instead society's needs changed over time.  Whereas in the 18th century there was not a need for a large workforce, the subsequent industrial revolution created great demand for cheap labor to operate machines and work assembly lines.  This, according to Marx's economic theory, is the reason for the reduction in penal severity.  Because he believes that law serves the needs of the dominant classes and helps to regulate the labor market, it naturally follow that the rehabilitative goals of newer penology were influenced heavily by the quickly increasing demand for workers.  Forcing workers to spend long days doing hard labor in factory-like prisons (or prison-like factories) would also show them that they could not escape work in their lives by leading lives of crime, as sooner or later they would be caught and forced to do even more hard work.  This would serve as a new sort of deterrence, making corporal punishment less useful for deterring the average criminal.  It would still be necessary, however, for the most serious offenses.
	Yet another explanation is posed by Michael Foucault.  He posits that the newer forms of punishment are simply more effective and bearable ways of achieving the same levels of power over the criminal as before.  The previous punishments were focused primarily on the body, and used torture and death as a means of repaying the criminal.  Such events were seen as barbaric rituals, however, viewed as simply recreating the original crime "in cold blood, remorselessly" (Foucault, 9).  The new penology, instead of focusing on the physical aspects of punishment, instead pursued a less barbaric goal, that of punishing the soul of the criminal.  This way the body became simply a tool used for punishing, instead of the object actually being punished.  This is mainly done by imprisonment, by depriving the prisoner of any rights that would make life more convenient, whether they be a choice of food, sexual satisfaction, social interaction, and so on.  This is not completely disconnected from corporal punishment, however, as the above listed deprivations still actually have an effect on the body.  Therefore it can be seen that it is difficult to separate a punishment of the soul from punishment of the body, and this may be the reason that even in this new penology the death penalty still exists.  In those cases where punishment by differing degrees of bodily deprivation are not enough to punish the criminal, the penal system must turn toward the ultimate deprivation, that of life itself.
	In truth, all of these theories, while not accurately describing the whole of the leniency revolution, do explain various parts of it.  Parts of the theories, taken together, describe much of the reason for punishment reform over the last few hundred years.  It is true, as Durkheim postulates, that the reduction in religion's control over society has greatly contributed to the reduction in capital punishments, and the lack of severity in their executions.  With the elimination of such capital crimes as blasphemy and fornication from the lawbooks, the number of executions performed is significantly dropped, and some of the reasons for their being excessively harsh is reduced.  At the same time, Marx is correct that the great increase in worker demand has led to newer thoughts on how best to deal with convicted criminals.  The chain gang and various in-house projects in prisons have attempted to utilize the prisoners as a source of revenue, and at the same time teach the men and women that they have the ability to do hard work and lead good, crime-free lives once they are released from prison.  This idea was also propelled further by advancements in fields such as psychology, which suggested that all criminals could be "fixed" with the proper method.  Although not very successful, the programs did help to promote thoughts of reform of prisoners throughout society, instead of just standard punishment.  This also ties into Foucault's analysis that the barbaric capital punishment was seen as degrading to both the prisoners and to the societies that participated in their executions, giving more force to the sentiment that prisoners should be treated in the most humane ways whenever possible.
	These do not explain the entire change, however.  There are various other reasons that can be said to have pushed for the leniency revolution.  One is the amount of errors that are detailed in the accounts of old executions.  Foucault shows this in his description of Damean's execution, where just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.  The patches of skin that were to be ripped from his skin instantly required many pulls before finally coming loose, the process of quartering his body was much more difficult than expected, requiring external intervention with knives, and so on.  Today's system of lethal injection and the bureaucratized process that precedes it is designed to minimize error as much as possible, and successfully leaves very little room for it.  Another example, somewhat related to this one, is the modern day conception of justice.  Trials of old were very swift and had many shortcomings, such as many times allowing only one side to present its case.  Undoubtedly these qualities led to many wrongful convictions, something that is avoided whenever possible in today's judicial system.  As the extensive appeals system shows, today's society wishes to give people as many chances as possible to prove their innocence.  The death penalty conflicts with that belief, by making the punishment utterly irreversible.  This is yet another reason for the reduction of capital punishment - mistakes do happen, and when we make them, we would like to be able to correct them.
	There are many differences in punishment styles listed above, and yet many more could be found with an even more in-depth look at the various examples.  The differences are numerous, and the reasons behind them even more so.  Many philosophers such as those listed above have put forth their theories as to why the leniency revolution occurred, and what exactly its results were.  While none of them seem to offer a completely satisfactory explanation of the process, when taken together and paired with some critical thinking of ones own, the various theories help to form a coherent review of the process of penal reform.

Bibliography
Banner, Stuart (2002) The Death Penalty: An American History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

Foucault, Michael (1977) "The Body of the Condemned." Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Pantheon Books, New York)

Lukes, Steven & Scull, Andrew (1983) "The Evolution of Punishment." Durkheim & the Law (Robertson & Company Ltd)

Lynch, Mona (2000) "The Disposal of Inmate #85271: Notes on a Routine Execution."  Studies in Law, Politics, & Society (JAI Press)