In Michel Foucault's Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, the author revels in tales of past penal methods that involved the brutal torture of the convicted criminal as a popular public spectacle. He subtly denounces the rigid but humane rhythms applied to contemporary incarceration and the growing distance between the justice system and the punishment of prisoners. At first, Foucault's concern with a system in which criminal justice takes place mostly behind closed doors makes sense. Wouldn't it be effective to scare potential lawbreakers into righteousness with horrific public scenes of pain and slow death of local criminals? However, upon careful consideration, there are a multitude of flaws in Foucault's sentiments. I am convinced that the long-ago methods of the theatrical honorable amande are not an effective penal measure because they turned criminal punishment into a celebratory event. The scenes of blood and violence were seen by all, and Foucault ignores the fact that the bodily consequences were often far more despicable than the initial crime committed. Criminals do not deserve center stage in society. Instead of being dehumanized, they should be made recognizable to the common person so that one can imagine one's revulsion at such a situation. While I agree with Foucault that a visual component can have a great effect on people, this aspect should come in the form of in-depth education in a class like this as opposed to a common spectacle associated with excitement and excitement. 'cheer. Discipline & Punish analyzes the evolution of criminal justice consequences with criticism of a system less perceptible to the public with very little consideration for alternative methods of viewing criminal justice solutions such as community well-being education. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, it should be recognized that the types of severe corporal punishment that Foucault does not necessarily advocate, but uses as an example of a true and effective spectacle, which often ends in death or at least physical injury and deformity, as in the case of Damiens in which «the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot tongs […] and, on the places where the flesh will be torn, he poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, molten wax and sulfur together and then his body dragged and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire” (3) This is the type of solution he believes is necessary to adequately create “the grim feast of punishment” (8), and what's more, it is permanent. Although it was never explicitly stated in the first chapter of his work, with his tolerance for spectacular punishment Foucault presupposes either that the justice system is entirely blameless or that if someone were to be wrongly convicted, their undeserved torture would be acceptable for the higher purpose of setting an example for the public. The prospect of wrongly convicting a normal, honest citizen and subjecting him to such irreversible horrors is enough to make this penal method questionable. Even regarding the judicial system, Foucault has some contradictory words about how the modern public perceives the judiciary after penal reform, what he calls “the great 'scandal' for traditional justice” (7). He believes that the haste, privacy, and almost clinical manner of contemporary executions reverse the roles of the punisher and the punished, making the judge, jury, and executioner appear evil in the eyes of the public (9). He states that “execution..