Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Essay on the Issues of Punishment and Social Production
Analytic Essay
In this paper, the following will focus on the topic of punishment and social production with a specific focus on management, control, and place. The first section of this essay will address ways in which punishment creates social order not only for those labeled as offenders, but society as a whole. The second section of this paper will address the social mechanisms, policies, and actors involved in punishment, in which the third section of this paper will focus on how such factors work toward creating social order. Finally, the fourth section of this paper will address how different communities within society are affected by punishment.
This first section of the paper will address how punishment creates social order for both offenders and society as a whole. As outlined in Hall et al.’s reading on the management of punishment and social production, punishment is used in society as a compliance tactic, such that the provocation or mere existence of punishment enacted on offenders within society allows for the public to simply comply and readily accept the need for efficient means to harm reduction methods (Hall et al. 9). Punishment of offenses such as mugging as outlined by Hall et al., creates moral panic, such that when a crime is deemed as a threat to social norms and values, in which society is at risk of harm, society as a whole then follows a consensus that punishment is needed to maintain social order (Hall et al. 23). Through the use of mugging and its promotion for the use of punishment, one can see why this form of crime and criminality justifies as to why punishment is not only needed for social order, but is needed to create balance in society, and dismantle existing social tensions or problems. Given this example of mugging outlined by Hall et al., one can see that punishment of such offenses not only creates social order, but reduces the rates of moral panic, and creates social cohesion by restoring justice back into society. Given this, it is prevalent that punishment is used as a means to not only control society and offenders, but to produce society as well, such that acts of punishment are a way of deterring and controlling society through the use of prisons, asylums, or rehabilitation institutes for instance. Likewise, punishment produces society, by creating social worry through moral panic, in which this may promote positively produced acts in society, social stability based on consensus, or the very act of trusting politicians in hopes that they have the best interests of society and can create social control, in which punishment is a part of society’s production.
As for Rios’ reading on the control mechanisms behind social production and punishment, he draws on the work of Foucault and the idea of constant surveillance through the panopticon. The panopticon stood as a use for constant surveillance, in which offenders were taught to self-discipline and it created obedient subjects of the prison (Rios 88). Quite similarly, the use for the panopticon has evolved into systems of constant surveillance amongst young boys as outlined by Rios, seeing as young offenders in certain communities have been the center of punitive measures of punishment and the center of this ‘panopticon’. Given the oversight amongst young boys, this form of punishment has evolved into a modern-day panopticon and has labeled such bodies as risks or threats from society, by which constant surveillance and oversight on young boys controls and contains their actions, all while generating social order to society as a whole. As a result, this systems approach to punishment has somewhat positive outcomes, seeing as young boys have developed coping skills, such that the fear of being further punished or pushed further down into the criminal justice system is enough to comply in such a way that generates social order to both offenders and society as a whole.
In this second section of the paper, the social mechanisms, policies, and actors involved in punishment are addressed. The social mechanisms involved in punishment could either be through the carceral state, in which may include formal punishments or state surveillance. Through the administrative state, punishment may be enforced through social programs, and through the legal state, punishment can be justified through legal rights, constitutions, or state sanctions. Social mechanisms are moving parts in society, such that punishment amongst society is a form of social order that is generated from shared beliefs, norms and consensus. Through the civil society, punishment doesn’t have to be a formal body implementing state policies or sanctions, but could simply be generated through culture, media, family or religious beliefs (lecture; Richer Mar. 4, 2020). As an example, a culture is a form of social control mechanism seeing as culture has specific connections to the state, social institutions, and the social structure of such institutions, in which laws, legislation, or prisons all work together with culture to promote a social state of affair that give rise to cultural means. Further, punishment has changed through history, and therefore changes or depends on time and place, such that culture heavily influences how punishment is enacted. As outlined by Beckett and Herbert’s reading on penal boundaries, social control mechanisms, such as spatial exclusion tactics are a way of punishing certain bodies in society or creating an outward movement of undesirable populations. This form of social control mechanism overlaps with policies involved in punishment and may include vagrancy or loitering laws, civil commitments or gang injunctions, in which these forms of spatial exclusion are all ways in which certain individuals may experience punishment (Beckett & Herbert 3).
As opposed to social mechanisms of punishment, policies generate a more formal implementation and approach toward punishment. With the existence of a mugging crisis, a push for punishment policies surrounding more tough-on-crime rhetoric originates, such that soft sentences or soft-on-the-criminal policies eventually lead to more permissive attitudes (Hall et al. 13). As a result, tough-on-crime rhetoric led to a transition period of soft to tougher outcomes in the courtroom, such that created policies helped determine sentencing outcomes, in which factors considered include deterrence, retribution, public safety, and rehabilitation methods (Hall et al. 11). Tough on crime policies also targets minority groups in high crime situations and promotes harsher police practices, such as stop and frisk, or carding as a result.
Punishment can also be enforced through criminal justice or state actors, in which may include judges, police officers, policymakers, or politicians. Given these examples, criminal justice or state actors represent the state and their ideals on what punishment should entail, such that these actors represent a formal body and enforce formal acts of punishment. As outlined in Hausmann’s reading on misdemeanor justice, formal body representatives of the state enforce punishment through methods that guarantee social control, and approach methods of punishment that not only betters the criminal justice system, but trace, engages, and disciplines subjects in such a manner that works in the favor of both the offender and society as a whole (Hausmann 353). Hausmann also argues that the level of misdemeanor offenses is increasing, and criminal justice actors must prioritize punishment tactics that are less inclined to convict or lock up every offender they come into contact with (Hausmann 356). By using this approach, criminal justice actors associate select offenses with low-level policing, in order to reduce the level of constraints imposed on the criminal justice system and criminal courts, and use penal techniques that are more effective in promoting social control.
In this third section of the paper, the social mechanisms, policies, and actors that create social order is addressed. For the social mechanisms involved in creating social order, Hausmann suggests that the criminal justice system itself stands as a body that uses social control mechanisms to generate social order, in which the practices of such control mechanisms impose punishment as a means to regulate deviance. In terms of the carceral state, punishment can be generated through the use of prisons, such that this form of social control mechanism removes and physically segregates offenders from the rest of society (Hausmann 355). Hausmann’s position on the use for prisons in society is quite similar to the eugenics movement. More specifically, the eugenics movement removed those deemed as unfit in society or tried to cure individuals who did not reflect the norm within society. By physically removing individuals from society and isolating them in prisons, all while labeling them as offenders and inheritable, this is not only a social control mechanism for social order, but it is a mere reflection of a modern-day eugenic movement. Despite the use of prisons, Hausmann also argues that the mere existence or threat of prisons is enough for society as a whole to comply with legislation and enough for the state to create social order. This is especially present amongst probation or parole populations, such that the fear of re-entering the prison is enough for formally incarcerated individuals to comply, and not re-offend or pose a threat to the rest of society (Hausmann 355). Another way in which social control mechanisms can create social order is through the use of culture, in which media coverages or political-driven movements use culture to promote the structural needs of society, and it is through a culture that one is able to make arguments, create protests, or take political action in order to generate social order. As example, the #MeToo Movement or the Black Lives Matter Movement, are prime examples of cultural movements that fight for the rights of a society’s cultural meanings, and a demand for social order. Likewise, by using media to create moral panic and create social awareness, people are forced into thinking that they need a fast solution, in which this punitive attitude forces society to demand stability, social justice, and social order.
As for the actors involved in creating social order, Hausmann argues that criminal justice actors approach punishment tactics at a low level of policing when dealing with misdemeanors. Given this, criminal justice actors can also extend this use for low-level policing across all other domains of enforcing punishment, such that the use of discretion not only shows leniency when enforcing social order and social control, but it shows how the state can also protect the rights of both offenders and society as a whole by giving attention to more severe and threatening crimes or offenses (Hausmann 358). Criminal justice actors also use their discretion when considering misdemeanor punishments, such that they use degradation ceremonies such as marking techniques to identify or label offenders, procedural hassle techniques to engage one with formal state procedures, or performance tactics to address unaccomplished assigned tasks (Hausmann 365). Having said this, it is through the use of discretion by criminal justice actors that creates social order amongst offenders and society as a whole.
Finally, the fourth section of this paper discusses how different communities within society are affected by punishment. Communities heavily marked or over-policed experience overt punishment, in which Hausmann argues that a felony conviction or criminal record is especially harsh on marginal communities or amongst the formerly incarcerated, such that this tactic to mark individuals as offenders bleeds into the social opportunities one can attain, job opportunities, educational opportunities, housing commitments, or familial relations. Moreover, those in marginal communities with a record or marked as formerly incarcerated, experience a sense of isolation, and are faced with punishment outside of the prison and into their everyday personal life. Punishment is also experienced differently within society amongst various communities, such that ghetto areas, areas concentrated with young men/offenders, areas with visible minorities, or individuals with low socio-economic statuses experience mass surveillance, oversight, and differential treatment of punishment tactics by criminal justice actors. Given this, marking techniques used amongst visible minorities, are proxies given to police actors to use discretion when enforcing the law, such that spatial fixes such as park exclusions, trespassing admonishment, or off-limit orders are all ways in which punishment is enacted on marked bodies.
Communities concentrated with various social identities also experience punishment, in which Rios argues that young Latino and Black boys use ‘play’ as a form of personal enjoyment activities that are often times confused as a social disorder, such that young brown bodies or those with marginalized backgrounds are faced with social isolation, and restrained as to what space they can use for recreation (Rios 76). As a result, marginalized bodies, especially youth, are criminalized for their ‘play’ time and are overly exposed to park time cutoffs, or camera surveillance in their neighborhoods, such that this use of state surveillance and oversight criminalizes the victim, and overly exposes particular communities to unequal punishment and legal cynicism. Given this, young Black and Latino boys are always under constant scrutiny, surveillance, and policing, such that they rebel and turn to crime. Rios also argues that probation officers mark marginalized young boys by branding them as criminals in front of their community peers, such that this is a form of punishment that is supposed to scare young boys into thinking that they are constantly being watched, if not by probation officers, then by the rest of their community (Rios 84). This then creates unrealistic or high expectations of young boys, such that the actions of probation officers promote an environment that either under-polices or over-polices, and uses police practices not in the best interests of the young boys, but rather promotes further punishment for social control. As a result, the treatment of young boys by their probation officers has led individuals to distrust criminal justice actors, and has promoted the use of non-compliance tactics, or developing a code of the street mentality.
Communities concentrated by different social statuses’ also experience punishment, such that homeless populations are oftentimes faced with social isolation, and in more extreme cases banishment. As explained by Beckett and Herbert, banishment is used to restore order and civility to communities, in which high levels of criminality and disorder is oftentimes tied to homelessness (Beckett and Herbert 5). In such communities with high prevalence of homelessness or low socio-economic statuses, these groups of individuals experience social exclusion and spatial segregation from the rest of society, spatial ostracism, and zoning out in which middle-class or higher-class individuals move into the inner cities, all while lower-class individuals are further pushed on the outskirts of the city. A prime example of banishment we see today is through the use of revitalization, such as the Regent Park revitalization project, or gentrification, in which individuals are forced out of their communities. Quite similarly, this use of banishment on the social movement and fluidity of society is also quite similar to the treatment of Indigenous individuals, such as through the use of the starlight tours where Indigenous people are driven by police to the outskirts of the city and left in the cold to find their way back to town. This is not only a form of zoning out imposed on Indigenous bodies, but it is a form of punishment seeing as criminal justice actors are directly involved in banishing and excluding a specific group of individuals.
In conclusion, as outlined in this paper, punishment and social production is expressed through the use of management, control, and place. Furthermore, punishment not only controls offenders and society as a whole, but produces it, in which social mechanisms, policies, and actors are actively involved in punishment, and contributes to creating social order through differential treatment of punishment experienced amongst different communities.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.