The United States of America panel system

In recent years, the United States of America panel system has seen an aggressive and unmistakable growth

especially through the building of jails and a rise in the number of people incarcerated. Though the whole population has been profoundly impacted, African Americans and Hispanics have been unfairly considered to be the voice of Americans behind bars. Michel Foucault’s philosophies of restraint and punishment are both a verifiable science of discipline and an illustrative investigation of the jail and legal system. Foucault portrays the prison as a panoptical system that connects with for the most part in disciplinary measures to watch and create accommodating bodies (Foucault, Michel, p. 12). While Michele Alexander’s the new Jim Crow outlines race-related issues, particularly to American-American men in America, he takes notes on the issue of discrimination experienced the blacks is pervasive among the different minority groups and in addition the disadvantaged, in particular socio-economically. In the book, she depicts how the present mass imprisonments fill an indistinguishable need from pre-civil war servitude as well as post-civil war keeping in mind the need of continuing racial station system (Alexander, Michelle, p. 13). This manuscript seeks to comparatively analyze prisons, the judiciary power of the states and subjugation of citizen to the justice system through Foucault and Michelle’s lens, using Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish: Panopticism” and “The New Jim Crow” as theoretical framework to aid in comparative analysis of mass incarceration and justice system.

Mass incarceration

Mass incarceration is a term that refers to massive rate and number of the jail populace in American that smothers others nations around the world (Lynch, Gerard E, p. 562). The term does not just allude to the detainments of guilty parties, but in addition includes the efficient imprisonment of entire populaces, which are mainly African American and Hispanic. While both Foucault and Alexander discusses social and racial-related issues that occurred in prison and judicial system during the modern age based on the historical documentations in United States of American and France, Foucault contends that the prison framework did not turn into the key of discipline due to the humanities worries of reformists, but due to the social moves that prompted the prevalence of detainment facilities through the form of power (Foucault, Michel, p. 18), whilst Alexander believes that prison system is metaphorical, thus, serves as the central premise from which the book derives its title, “The New Jim Crow”. They both seems to agree that the prison system has been changed from the punishment features into a system of managing detainees, thus the face of modern criminal and judicial framework is preserved systems that increase the issues of racism and create more complicated forms of racism in our societies (Alexander, Michelle, p. 34).

Crime and punishment in the prison system

While both Alexander and Foucault sees crime and punishment in prison system as an unlawful act in our societies. Alexander takes criminal activities and punishment as ineffectively associated and blueprints that the current justice framework in America have successfully trend into a framework that is against global past experience, with its largest target being raced. He takes note of the rate of detainment in America have increased, while the criminal activities has by and largely stayed like other western countries, where imprisonment rate is stable, yet in the united states, united states, it is six times more prominent than the industrialized countries (Alexander, Michelle, p. 25). Alexander keeps up that this dissimilarity does not correspond to the variance of violations, but rather it can be because of the misleadingly summoned war on criminal activities, like drugs and related biased approaches. Thus, united states have started a remarkable extension of prison framework (Alexander, Michelle, p. 26). On the contrary, Foucault maintains that the change to imprisonment took some time; there were more classified changes, although the whole process runs its course more rapidly. Imprisonment was proceeding by several forms of the society account. Specifically, the theater of people in general subjected to torment offered the path to the general population chain. Foucault suggests that prison disciplines ended up noticeably delicate however not for the compassionate reasons. He takes note of that the reformists were troubled with flighty, inequality distributed nature of viciousness the sovereign caused on the imprisoned individuals. The right of the sovereigns to push was disproportionate to the point that it was incapable and uncontrolled (Foucault, Michel, p. 40)

Discipline in our prison system

A more complex analysis can be experienced when both writers focus on discipline in our prison system. While both Alexander and Foucault takes the emergency of prisons as the form of punishment for all the crimes that grew out of the development of disciples, Foucault concentrates on the improvement of the very refined types of disciplines, for this situation, discipline is mainly about the exact assumption of the human desires. He recommends that disciplinary measures have built up another form of governmental issues for the people. Besides, he takes into notes of the current foundation’s requirements that the individuals should be in agreement with their assigned duty. For this reason, Foucault contends that disciplinary measures had made radical new types of distinctions for the people, and empowered them to play out their obligation in the modern and continuing age in today’s world (Foucault, Michel, p. 67). On the contrary, Alexander believes that civil society group has been hesitant to be involved in the maintenance of discipline, particularly by concentrating in the protection of the affirmative action gains, which mainly benefits the elites in the society, especially the high-achieving African American. She takes note of that the youthful African American is under the dynamic control of the criminal framework. She outlines that lack of recognition of the immensity of the emergency has been on the increase. According to Alexander, detainment is the most harmful sign of African American against the civil society rights. She keeps on taking note of that the decision of Barrack Obama as president is not a definitive triumph over race divergence (Alexander, Michelle, p. 47).

Conclusion

The term mass improvement refers to the state routine with regards to vindictiveness, dread, and disturbance which is profoundly established in the irrational perceptions of the larger population in the society. In this paper, both Alexander and Foucault offers same ideologies in racisms that can outlines the difference in the practices experienced in the judicial system, but fails to outline the clear understanding of the mass improvement as an intervention to the criminal and justice framework that targets mainly the African American and the minority groups in the society. However, Foucault and Alexander imagination of the minority mistreatments when connected to the mass detainment the society to acquire compressive thoughts about mass improvement around the world.

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. 1st ed., New York, N.Y., New Press, 2012,.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline And Punish. 1st ed., New York, Vintage, 2012,.

Lynch, Gerard E. “Ending Mass Incarceration: Some Observations And Responses To Professor Tonry”. Criminology & Public Policy, vol 13, no. 4, 2014, pp. 561-566. Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12105.