Penal reform succeeded by managing illegalities differentially, not eliminating them

Evidence

But, although it is true that reform, as a penal theory and as a strategy of the power to punish, took shape at the point of coincidence of these two objectives, its stability in the future was due to the fact that, for a long time, priority was given to the second. It was because the pressure on popular illegalities had become, at the period of the Revolution, then under the Empire, and finally throughout the nineteenth century, an essential imperative, that reform was able to pass from the project stage to that of an institution and set of practices. That is to say, although the new criminal legislation appears to be characterized by less severe penalties, a clearer codification, a marked diminution of the arbitrary, a more generally accepted consensus concerning the power to punish (in the absence of a more real division in its exercise), it is sustained in reality by an upheaval in the traditional economy of illegalities and a rigorous application of force to maintain their new adjustment. A penal system must be conceived as a mechanism intended to administer illegalities differentially, not to eliminate them all. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 144

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the reformist penal system as an ‘economy of illegalities’ administered differentially, a key Foucault concept.
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that punishment’s function is to differentially administer illegalities rather than eliminate them is a paradigm-shifting inversion of how penal systems are usually understood.
• XREF: connects to: Profitability, not severity, is the surest test of prisoner reformation — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 192; Prison reform is an integral part of the prison’s functioning, not its antidote — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 359; Tolerated illegality was a structural condition of Ancien Régime society — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 138 (+6 more)

Related

• Penal reform sought not less punishment but more universal, deeper social control (similarity 0.88)
• Penal reform arose from a policy shift, not new humanitarian feeling (similarity 0.87)
• Penal reform aimed to increase punishment’s effects while lowering its costs. (similarity 0.87)
• Reformers reframed punishment as protection rather than vengeance (similarity 0.85)
• Penal codes keep stable while the substance judged shifts from crime to offender (similarity 0.85)
• Reformers sought to redistribute punitive power throughout the whole social body. (similarity 0.84)
• Reform-era punishment was future-directed, aimed at prevention (similarity 0.83)
• Prison reform is an integral part of the prison’s functioning, not its antidote (similarity 0.83)
• Reform punishment shifted example from sovereign display to economic obstacle (similarity 0.83)
• Penal reform shifted punishment from the act to the offender’s character (similarity 0.82)
• Punishment’s severity must aim at future prevention, not past harm (similarity 0.82)
• Reformers shifted punishment’s aim from expiation to prevention (similarity 0.81)
• The rise of the prison institutionalized the power to punish (similarity 0.81)
• European and American punishment was entirely reorganized in less than a century (similarity 0.81)
• Failed penal reform collapses back into harsher punishment (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Remaining prohibitions face structural barriers the completed reforms did not #expands (0.85) — , The Rod and the Child, 7999
• Punishment shifted from sovereign vengeance to ensuring no crime goes unpunished #contradicts (0.80)
• Subtler punishment masked sovereign power rather than making it more humane #complicates (0.80)
• Feigned punishment could deter crime without real suffering #exemplifies (0.75) — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 28