Comparing Foucault's Interpretation Of Punishment

Foucault’s interpretation of punishment differs to a large extend from Durkheim’s. The first believes that punishment is utilitarian and instrumental in nature, and the second argues that it is mainly moral and emotional. Foucault fails to accept that there are aspects of the penal system that malfunction, a problem which is not present in Durkheim’s study because of the sentimental principles of punishment. However, Niveen was not punished by the society after upsetting their ‘conscience collective’; instead she was punished by psychiatrists and counselors. The modern juridical system punishment transformed the mother into a failure in front of the people. If she would have been punished in a more physical and violent way, as it used to be,
society would have seen her as a hero instead. Foucault knew that modern punishment is demeaning, it doesn’t necessarily serve as means of moral education as Durkheim asserted. However both believed that punishment is a necessary institution for a society to function correctly, Michel Foucault continuously expressed the weight of punishment: “Justice must always question itself, just as society can exist only by means of the work it does on itself and its institution.” (Foucault, "Vous Êtes Dangereux," in Libération (Paris, 30 June 1983; repr. in Didier Eribon, Michel Foucault, 1989; tr. 1991).