Penal judgement now asks diagnostic questions beyond determining guilt

Evidence

The question is no longer simply: ‘Has the act been established and is it punishable?’ But also: ‘What is this act, what is this act of violence or this murder? To what level or to what field of reality does it belong? Is it a phantasy, a psychotic reaction, a delusional episode, a perverse action?’ It is no longer simply: ‘Who committed it?’ But: ‘How can we assign the causal process that produced it? Where did it originate in the author himself? Instinct, unconscious, environment, heredity?’ It is no longer simply: ‘What law punishes this offence?’ But: ‘What would be the most appropriate measures to take? How do we see the future development of the offender? What would be the best way of rehabilitating him?’ A whole set of assessing, diagnostic, prognostic, normative judgements concerning the criminal have become lodged in the framework of penal judgement. Another truth has penetrated the truth that was required by the legal machinery; a truth which, entangled with the first, has turned the assertion of guilt into a strange scientifico-juridical complex. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 59

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines the ‘scientifico-juridical complex’ — the point where legal truth about guilt fuses with expert truth about the offender.
  • XREF: connects to: Penal justice entrapped itself by entering relations of knowledge. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 381; Modern penal practice replaced the act-question with the identity-question

Broader Connections