Necropolitics KK Lab - UMich 2020Foucault Research Group:Sydney Pasquinelli, Brandon Bosquette, Charlie Brooks,Alli Dixon, Daisy Garcia, Berk Oto, Thomas Reese; + special thanks to Bee Smale fortheir help w/ this file!
1NC ShellThe Aff’s reform of the CJS naturalizes the economy of the power to punish –the plan does not diminish, but rather perfects, the system of punishmentFoucault, M. (1975) Discipline and punish. Vintage Books, New York, NY. Pg 80-82 //bdoIt was not so much, or not only, the privileges of justice, its arbitrariness, its archaic arrogance,its uncontrolled rights that were criticized; but rather the mixture of its weaknesses andexcesses, its exaggerations and its loopholes, and above all the very principle of this mixture, the'super-power' of the monarch.Thetrueobjectiveof the reform movement, even in its mostgeneral formulations,is not so much to establish a new right to punish based on moreequitable principles, as to set up a new 'economy' of the power to punish, to assure its betterdistribution, so that it should be neither too concentrated at certain privileged points, nor toodivided between opposing authorities; so that it should be distributedin homogeneouscircuits capable of operating everywhere, in a continuous way,down to the finest grain of thesocial body.Thereformof criminallawmust be read as a strategy for the rearrangement of thepower to punish, according to modalities that render it more regular, more effective, moreconstant and more detailed in its effects; in short, which increase its effects while diminishingits Generalized punishment economic cost (that is to say, by dissociating it from the system ofproperty, of buying and selling, of corruption in obtaining not only office, but the decisionsthemselves) and its political cost (by dissociating it from the arbitrariness of monarchical power).The new judicial theory of penalty corresponds in fact to a new 'political economy' of thepower to punish.This explains why the 'reform' did not have a single origin. It was not the moreenlightened members of the public, nor the philosophes, who regarded themselves as enemiesof despotism and friends of mankind; it was not even the social groups opposed to theparliamentarism who instigated the reform. Or rather it was not they alone; in this same overallproject of a new distribution of the power to punish, and of a new distribution of its effects,many different interests came together.Reform is not prepared outside the legal machineryand against all its representativesit’s prepared, for the most part,from within, by a largenumber of magistrates andon the basis of shared objectivesand the power conflictsthatdivided them.Certainly the reformers did not form a majority of the magistrates; but it was abody of lawyers who outlined its general principles: apower to judgethatwould not beaffected by the immediate exercise ofthe prince'ssovereignty; that would be relieved of any