Listen and Subscribe
Podcast Transcript
The idea of crime and punishment dates back to the earliest human societies.
As societies have evolved, so too have punishments, transitioning from overt, public forms of discipline to more discrete methods.
Whether it be public floggings and executions or the security cameras in your grocery store, fear of punishment and deterrence has been the main tool to encourage citizens to follow the law.
Learn more about the spectacle of punishment and deterrence on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily.
The history of punishment can be traced back so far that it is impossible to determine when it started. Based on what we can determine, even early hunter/gatherer societies had forms of punishment to enforce norms and behaviors.
One of the primary functions of punishment is to deter others from engaging in the same behavior.
To these ends, within many societies, punishment has often been conducted as public spectacle, shown to the public either blatantly, like a public execution, or more subtly.
In the medieval period, punishment was typically meted out publicly, intended to humiliate the individual and deter others.
In Medieval Europe, common forms of punishment included the pillory and stocks, where offenders were restrained and exposed to ridicule; public whipping, branding, mutilation, and forced parading through town.
More serious crimes could lead to hanging, beheading, burning at the stake, or breaking on the wheel. Punishments varied widely by region, social rank, and the nature of the offense.
In Asian cultures, medieval torture was more psychological when compared to Europe.
In China, a common form of punishment was “Lingchi,” which was, quite literally, “death by a thousand cuts.” This form of torture was used to prolong the pain for enemies of the state and traitors. This form of punishment was often carried out in public, serving as a gruesome display of the state’s power.
To enforce discipline and preserve social order in Japan, samurai culture relied on severe punishments, including torture and execution, through methods such as boiling and crucifixion.
The victims of the punishment were often marched in front of crowds before being tortured. If they were being executed, the criminals’ heads were often put on public display, again acting as a deterrent.
Though the forms of punishment were similar to those in Europe the purpose of punishment in many Asian cultures was different.
Unlike systems focused strictly on the individual, punishment in Asian societies frequently extended to the entire family. It was believed that punishing family members created an even greater deterrent to breaking the law and community rules.
While the official reason for public executions was to serve as a deterrent and to mete out justice, public executions often became a form of entertainment. Executions were made into public events, in effect a product to be sold to the masses.
But why was the public interested in seeing death and torture?
According to a theory published in 1912 by a Russian Physician and Psychoanalyst, Sabrina Spielrein, humans are interested in witnessing the specific process of unnatural death.
Spielrein argued that humans possess both a ‘negative instinct’ toward death and a ‘positive instinct’ toward life. She suggested that witnessing events like public executions heightens these instincts, making observers feel a stronger appreciation for their own lives as they watch another person’s end.
This same instinct can be seen when people slow down to view an accident on the road or go out of their way to witness the results of a natural disaster.
One of the earliest examples of this was in the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, where the state marketed executions as public events to help cure public boredom. At these executions, there was often a huge crowd that was made up of people from all social classes.
Another example of this is the French Revolution. One of the major events of the Revolution was the Reign of Terror, which saw the execution of tens of thousands of people by guillotine, who were often sentenced without trial or with flimsy evidence.
During the Reign of Terror, approximately 2,600 people were executed in just Paris. That works out to an average of roughly eight executions per day.
The rate was extremely uneven. From June 10 to July 27, 1794, around 1,400 people were executed, averaging nearly 30 per day, with some days reaching about 50.
Crowds gathered around the guillotine as victims of the revolution were wheeled out on carts, heads placed on the block, and executed with the swift release of the blade.
The crowds often gathered souvenirs from the condemned, and were encouraged to celebrate the executions. They sang songs, danced, and celebrated Madame Guillotine. The French had turned the executions into a spectacle, both serving as a deterrent to opposing the revolution, but also as a celebratory symbol of the Revolution’s victory.
Yet despite public executions being designed to deter crime or unwanted behaviors, that was often not the case. Instead, crime often increased. Despite public executions in 19th-century Britain, crime rates remained high.
While this pattern is evident historically, modern data further reinforces it. Although public executions have ended in most nations, a few countries—including Iran—continue the practice. Though far less common today, these events still occur in Iran, enabling researchers to analyze their impact on citizens.
In Iran, sanctioned public executions are carried out by hanging. Reports of the hangings are made a few days or weeks prior, informing the public of the name of the criminal and the location of the execution, meaning that they are invited to witness the event.
Research published by the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2017 found that those who witness the event typically do not take the intended lesson from the execution. Instead, they become more prone to violence. Those who witnessed the execution often have a reduced sense of compassion towards other people, which actually encourages violent behavior.
For most countries, the practice of public executions began to die out during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Despite public executions demonstrating the power of the state and providing entertainment for the public, the ethics of the practice were called into question.
People who opposed the practice questioned whether it actually served as a deterrent, and, even if it did, whether it was right for someone to watch. For many, they found public executions to be uncivilized and barbaric.
In most places, public executions and displays of torture are now prohibited. While society no longer administers punishment publicly, the use of public methods to promote deterrence still exists but in different, and much subtler forms. Forms which at first might seem wholly unrelated.
The idea for this can be traced back to an 18th-century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who developed a new form of punishment he called the panopticon.
The panopticon was a circular room with a single large tower in the center. The center tower could watch the cells placed along the entire circumference of the structure.
The idea was simple: create a prison where a single prison officer can watch the inmates, creating the impression that they are always being watched.
The cells had two windows. One of the windows would face the guard tower, while the other was meant to let light in. The tower was backlit by lights behind the cells. This was designed to make the tower look like a beacon of darkness.
By keeping prisoners under constant visibility, the system enabled guards to quickly spot and respond to any disruption, fostering discipline through the perpetual fear of punishment.
Despite constant visibility being the point of the panopticon, in reality, prisoners were not always being watched. There aren’t enough guards to watch every cell at every moment of every day. It is the fear that they could be watched that gave the system its power.
The panopticon prison style was never built exactly as Bentham imagined, but similar designs do exist.
In our modern times, punishment is still turned into a spectacle; it is just less obvious. Instead of having prisoners being paraded through cities for people to gawk at we still do things which everyone can see and feel.
An example of making punishment a spectacle today is in the practice of a “perp walk.” When a suspect is arrested, law enforcement often parades the suspect before the media. The suspect is typically handcuffed and led by law enforcement, presenting an image of “this could be you” to potential criminals.
However, perp walks are few and far between. A far more common and subtle example of deterrence is surveillance, but not in a panopticon. In many ways, our society has become modern-day panopticon. Surveillance is everywhere. Cameras are placed within almost any venue you can think of to give the idea that everyone is constantly being watched.
Seoul has 24 surveillance cameras per 1,000 people; Los Angeles has 12; and the most surveilled city in the world is Hyderabad, India, with 79 cameras per 1,000 people.
While surveillance might seem very different from viewing a public execution, the end goal is pretty much the same. They are intended to encourage lawful behavior, and in their own ways, suggest the possibility of punishment.
When you go to the store to buy clothes, typically, one of the first things you see is a television. The screen will often show you walking into the sore. By doing this, the store is showing you that you’re under surveillance, using it as a preventive measure to discourage potential crimes like shoplifting.
Throughout the store, security cameras are installed, typically in a visible position, often behind a small black dome in the ceiling. This again gives the idea that someone is watching. You aren’t even aware if the camera is on, but the goal is to suggest that you are being watched.
The idea of deterring people from committing crimes is as old as human society itself. While the methods have changed, the underlying intent hasn’t. In the past, the goal was to shock people with the severity of the punishment, and today it is trying to show people the high odds of getting caught.
Most people think that we no longer conduct public executions because we’ve become more civilized, and that is true. However, in reality, the means of promoting deterrence has simply changed. While most people haven’t thought about it, a security camera and a public execution have a shocking amount in common when you consider the behavior they are trying to enforce.