User:Richardlord50/Geosurveillance (Critical Theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A term used by some of Michel Foucault's allies [1](although Foucault[2] himself never expressly used the term in any of his works). It is concerning Foucault's use of Jeremy Bentham's work the Panopticon, in his now classic work Discipline and Punish where Foucault uses Bentham's work as a metaphor for modern society's ever increasing dependence and need for disciplinary society and surveillance.It is important to note that the concept of Geosurveillance falls into at least three categories: (1) Groups, such as prison populations and (2) the general or mass population. It is a new system of surveillance for the scientific age and is in general more useful for mass population observation and is not really concerned with separate or different class relations as in modern Marxism,or bureaucracy and administration as in Max Weber[3]. Geosurveillance can be defined as "the surveillance of geographical activities."[4]Geography, space, time, territories and mass populations (which is not to dissimilar from Biopower ,Biopolitics although both however,are emerging concepts/theory,and is still a theory in the making and as yet requires much more groundwork to be completely satisfactory workable alternative,or however,if it is to be seriously considered as a challenge to modern social theory which while lacking any 'critical bite',and the theory of,Mass Surveillance , Social Control and surveillance while all four explanations are credible,it is hardly sufficient enough for the 'new wave and grand critical theory'.) which may be viewed as progress towards efficient administration. In Weber's view point, and according to modern Western Economic liberalism ,Political liberalism and classical liberalism this presents a benefit for the development of Western capitalism (and ultimately Western subjectivity) and the modern Nation state.[5]

The Term Geosurveillance[edit]

When explaining any term the reading audience must be aware of the context with which it can be used;for example,in explaining the meaning of Geosurveillance one should be aware of the aversion of being introduced to any new term (by the Social and Behavioural sciences because of its strong belief in a 'given' state of 'human nature' as a 'social fact'and possibly just might have to rewrite the whole social and behavioural sciences text book) this is more similar to a Taoist approach,of not declaring any interest in anything by declaring their independence from everything.and in the process an explanation of this often neglected excellent material a further question must be asked regarding precise definition of other technical issues involving surveillance matters.Questions therefore, should be pondered on accepted notions of surveillance[6](it should be reiterated that surveillance isn't a given state of fact in human society by an all pervasive regulating authority (namely the state)and humans willingness to subjugate themselves to some independent arbitrator which will be good for them in the long run,that would be absurd,but must be seen as a technical necessity(or issue) for the ever increasing 'carceral society'). Now, according to Foucault all ideas have a tendency to become normalised no matter what their content. What does he mean? At first, this does not seem to be a straightforward answer but if we look more closely, we find the meaning of what he says straightforwardly enough. He means that once an idea gains accepted practice (and becomes hidden from those who practice it) there is a social process that puts into practice normalisation procedures. Once that procedure is enacted upon, normalisation begins (see Discipline and Punish pp.177-184).A perfectly good example of this is the notion of global totalitarianism which cannot be accomplished in a single all encompassing territory,but must function within the confines of a global village environment(within mass population) in which humans now live, totalitarianisms has to be global to be workable,hence the replacement of the nation state (effectively replaced by the much more efficient use ofBiopower).What is replaced is not entry (gaining access) but absence of exit (exception to this rule would be only if you were economically improvished)"which would render the very notion of exit meaningless."[7] So instead of what was meant to reforming and rehabilitate (rather erroneously) the original offender (prison inmate) "Within this new normalization paradigm, progressive efforts, in many American prisons, have turned to improving the quality of program delivery, and experimentation with operational and programmatic modifications directed toward increasing inmate adjustment within safe and humane prisons, while simultaneously reducing the recidivism rate."[8] Prisons have now become effectively 'society's' (power systems and used by the general society's exclusion system,namely the judicial norms and legal requirements which follow) way of reproducing and creating recidivist, in which the recidivist is encouraged to repeats his "crimes" and then goes back into the general population only to re offend[9]. A staggering 67.5% are rearrested within three years. Out of 272,111, 183,675 were rearrested. (See parole later in the article).[10]


Geosurveillance and The Political Economy Of Penitentiary Punishment[edit]

The costs of having and maintaining the system of incarceration[11][12] and the Criminal justice system and its off shoot penitentiary punishment at least,for the time being,shows no sign of slowing down and therefore,no sign of controlling the ever spiralling rate of recidivism.If one were honest the rate of recidivism, and by implication the costs to the state cannot be so readily controlled.Administrators,have indicated this and by their own admittance (Council of State Governments Justice Centre working in conjunction with Texas law Policy-makers) have conceded this.[13]Also,one would be foolhardy to think otherwise it has already been admitted that if their isn't any change in policy 'we will be building prisons for ever and ever'.[14]

Geosurveillance and The Prison Population[edit]

Main articles: Recidivism, Prison, and Parole

Before we begin this section, a brief word should be given on the data available on the prison system. On the latest available statistics, as of 2008, America has an appalling prison rate per ratio to the general population who are in prison[15]. From 1970-2008 figures for 1970 showed that America had 196,429 in state and federal prisons with a steady increase right up to the present day. Available statistics show there were 330,000 prisoners in America in 1972[16]. This has now gone up to 2,299,116. This is in marked contrast with previous trends, which show a steady stable prison population where the use of incarceration was scarcely used [17].Suddenly there does seem to be a steady growth in incarceration [18]. The increase of the prison population from the general population has seen a marked increase all around the world, particularly America. Why?[19]Before we explain this point, let us survey the rest of the world, particularly Russia, China, and Europe.[20]The latest available data have China and Russia with 1.5 million and 1.0 million prisoners respectively. These two countries alone account for 25% of the world prison population.When we take into account America recidivist prison population (going back to our original point), we have a further 2,299,116 with a grand total of 4.8 million from just 3 countries(the world prison population is now 9,250,000)[21]in just three countries they account for 50 % of the world prison population.[22]What is most interesting is that the sheer scale of prison building and incarceration rates does not appear to be declining anytime soon and it appears that society as a whole is nearing a dystopian society[23] than many people may think.[24]We now have a prison system dedicated to funnelling and refunnelling people towards incarceration and to create no visible means of escape. No large scale breakout are ever possible within these institutions "Yet the maximum security prison, such as Kingston Penitentiary (KP), also turns out to be a place of uneven but not infrequent refusal, of revolt, and of ingenious escape attempts."[25]Even if there was, where would the prisoner go? It is a system for scientific correction without any available answers, because that would end the criminal experimentation (making people into criminals) and the many human sciences associated with it would end. It is more to do with indeterminate sentencing and the parole system associated with it that you get the high prison population (apparently, at least 88% according to figures published in a report)[26] obviously it has certainly taken on a life of its own. Already mentioned is the ‘large’ worldwide prison. Now, if we look at the general prison population, one notices the general make-up of the population is mainly from the working classes (without exception). Following on from the concept Geosurveillance, where class interest, class relations, and bureaucracy obviously bear no resemblance to a critical analysis where Geosurveillance is concerned. This is effectively problematic, which is twofold: Almost all criminals are from working class backgrounds, without exception, so it would be highly unlikely that wealthy individuals and the political elite would spend any time in prison. But for Geosurveillance to work, it has to take its que from the general population and then this knowledge would be transferable to the general prison population. "But surveillance is systematic; it is planned and carried out according to a schedule that is rational, not merely random."[27] It must be remembered with great emphasis that ‘only’ 9,250,000 are incarcerated around the world and 50% are just in three countries (as already mentioned above). Now the class interest gets to work on this problem. According to modern Marxism, it is more to do with surplus, or unproductive labour within modern capitalism, but that misses the central point. Surveillance within the prison system is acted upon by producing anonymity so it is not their anonymity that is the problem it is their individuality ”Surveillance is bound up with what we call ‘governance.’ This goes far beyond what governments do; the ‘computer state’ is now a dated idea. Governance refers to how society (mass population) is ordered and regulated in manifold ways. Governance controls access, opportunities, chances and even helps to channel choices, often using personal data to determine who gets what. Actuarial practices all too often take over from ethical principles”[28]. As anyone knowing and reading Das Kapital Marx himself spotted this which anyone who cares to read him can testify, unemployment only serves to reduce (in times of rapid contraction, stagnation, and low demand) and govern wages and in no way does wages increase as unemployment rises.This does not eliminate the class problem, a Marxist will say, but the whole point is that the class interest is bound up with the many new scientific concepts, ( Evolutionary Social Psychology, Evolutionary epistemology, Evolutionary Theory and Education, Forensic psychiatry, Forensic psychology to name only a very few). "The legal system is at the frontier of formal social social responses to advances in scientific understanding of human behaviour."[29] Socially, they function within these paradigm and, only when the relationship between the recidivist criminal (professional criminals) is better understood and the relationship between the offshoot and the 'new sciences' and the convergence of both we can then review the recidivist criminal in a different light, namely that the surplus labour (or if you would prefer unproductive labour) no matter what its function, is productive to the sciences because the judicial and legal hierarchy with the association it forms within the scientific community serve the criminal recidivist and all of the above named resultant factors have a need for each other.The judicial criminal justice system particularly in the western world would function in a very different manner, probably not at all,so it seems self evident and highly unlikely that without criminal recidivism,some 9,250,000 around the world-the legal and judicial hierarchy-would themselves become ‘unproductive,’ and that would probably be untenable to the now modern 'disciplinary society'." As the legal system is inclined to look to the scientific community for guidance in establishing culpability when psychoactive medication is implicated (therefore participating importantly in the modification of folk psychology) it will also do so in cases of traumatic brain injury."[30]

Geosurveillance and Risk Analysis[edit]

Risk:From the French word risquer,"meaning endanger,to put at risk,expose to the chance of injury or loss." [31] and then the word analysis meaning:Analysis derived from the Greek;analusis "The breaking up of something complex into its various simple elements." [32]This must be differentiated from,but at the same time associated with Risk Assessment, although risk analysis is primarily concerned with 'surveillance control' and is considered a priority (primarily by the veterinary authorities) among many aspects. [33]

The General Population[edit]

Main article: CCTV

In a surreal event direct from George Orwell novel 1984 in a city in the UK, Middlesbrough (in the Town centre) now have CCTV with loudspeakers (totalling 158 in all) which can directly communicate with passers by on the street. This serves as a 'deterrent' against the most trivial of offences dropping litter on the street and riding through a pedestrian area on a bike. This is one example of normalising[34] judgement through the concept of 'deterrent' a modern Geosurveillance society and the general population. Although the watchword is safety for the public, what it does do is deliver 'normalisation' of the CCTV system among the general population.

Encoding Fear and Biology[edit]

Encoding[edit]

Main article: Encoding

In the first instance it is important to begin with after consulting the given evidence to imagine (if imagine is the correct word) for the sake of simplicity, that, what is about to be written is a ‘given’ (namely the human subject).In his/her own given environment, not as a mass society environment but as a ‘band society’ environment, which would include only between 4-12 people(which has been the experience of the majority of human existence incidentally) and in the brain we(namely humans) form what is termed ‘habit based learning system’ which is found in the area ‘ventral prefrontal cortex’ and ‘dorsolateral striatum’. Which makes things interesting because of the advent of motivational value, (a human defined concept incidentally, not a concept made independently from humans nor there language) although it is conceded that the behaviour is learned, not innate.

There is another important mechanism by which the value of actions can be learned, and which turns out to have special importance when considering social actions such as punishment. Clearly, one advantage of social living is that it allows an individual to learn about events that they never themselves experience, simply by observing others. Information gained from observation has considerable value, whether it reflects the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as it can be used to improve one’s own individual future behaviour.[35]

Fear[edit]

Main articles: Fear and Fear conditioning

Quite clearly this reflects that punishment is an ‘empirical’ social fact once the necessity of human social interaction has given over to circumstances to the consequences of social living (for a fuller explanation on this, see more on this later on elsewhere in this article). And according to studies on punishment is seen as an effective way to mediate cooperation and according to this neurobiological view of punishment, they (humans) punish altruistically, of course this only goes to prove the point that nothing is a given but has to be made and enforcement is the way (although in their view based upon ‘empirical’ observational studies there is a constant fixed view from which humans base there actions). However, it is very much acknowledged that enforcement via punishment,although regarding this is still very much poorly understood. ”It is less clear, however, how the value of goals is learned through the observation of other individuals choices. The distinction between action learning and value learning in observational contexts is important, and resembles that between motor control and instrumental learning in individual contexts.”[36] Whereas, motor control within the brain has been extensively studied with regards imitation and skill acquisition, it is admitted as much that value learning is less understood, in regards punishment while there is an agreed consensus where regards actions learned are part of behavioural norms.” Actions learned in this way may have the capacity to become behavioural norms, and can be adhered to in a way that incorporates some independence from actual outcomes. This maybe especially important for punishment, as we discuss below, as in theory it allows the propensity to punish to be culturally acquired, and the outcome of punishment to be learned without personal transgression.”[37]

Biology[edit]

Main article: Neurobiology

Whereas, motor control within the brain has been extensively studied with regards imitation and skill acquisition, it is admitted as much that value learning is less understood, in regards punishment while there is an agreed consensus where regards actions learned are part of behavioural norms.” Actions learned in this way may have the capacity to become behavioural norms, and can be adhered to in a way that incorporates some independence from actual outcomes. This maybe especially important for punishment, as we discuss below, as in theory it allows the propensity to punish to be culturally acquired, and the outcome of punishment to be learned without personal transgression.”[38] On this theory the whole system relies upon a concept of judgement and the normalisation within the cultural environment with regards punishment. The system upon which it is founded is human motivation, learning and action and the reason why humans punish one another is to safeguard there cooperative system which has been set up once a community has been established. This is according to this view a necessity for the survival of the community, thus:

Our current understanding of human motivation draws strongly on an extensively animal literature in experimental psychology. Motivation is characterized by action, either to increase the probability of an outcome (appetitive motivation), or to reduce it (aversive motivation). Thus a reward can be operationally defined as an event that an animal will expend energy to bring about, whereas a punishment is an advent that an animal will expend energy to bring about to reduce or avoid. Note that in this way (and typical in the experimental psychology literature), the term punishment is taken to apply to any aversive event, regardless of its aetiology. However, in social contexts (in social psychology and behavioural economics), a punishment is often assumed to refer more specifically to an aversive event administered by another individual. These sematic distinctions aside, any complete motivational account of punishment needs to consider both the propensity to administer, and the impact of receiving a punishment.[39]

Interestingly, there is no attempt to explain the arrival(in an historical context) of the judicial and legal hierarchies arrival to enforce its judicial and legal framework of power and the plethora of sciences that surround the system of human punishment.It is as if there has been a 'contextual splitting',without the normalisation of the contextual splitting involved,and in so doing so this-(the contextual splitting)-the normalisation procedure has been lost.Especially to the cognitive sciences.

CNS,Biology and Fear conditioning[edit]

Now we come to the brain the most complex organism in the human body but what is known exactly about how the brain relates and organises fear within its given environment? What is its essence? Most crucially, its material substance. How is information disseminated within its environment in which it finds itself? How then does this information become true? In addition, how does fear within the brain become a social reality within the context of social control? We should not ignore current trends and recent developments and findings in cognitive science (where surprisingly little attention has been utilized in the human sciences/human nature sciences) in which the field has latest new developments in ideas regarding our ‘human nature’ and it has nothing to do with the current trend towards polemical truth. This isn’t our concern here, what does concern us is how the brain derives at particular truths (or social truths) and whether they are ‘real’ regardless of who has or hold these ‘truths,’ which may, or may not have a ‘natural’ nature towards being human.” Opioid dependence disorder is a complex disease. The development of a drug addiction and the tendency to relapse are caused by a combination of both genetic and environment factors.”[40] However, when one takes a look at the cognitive sciences analysis of concepts we find this: "The study of concepts has been central to cognitive science. Both philosophers and psychologists have proposed theories of concepts and concept acquisition; however, the two groups of scholars often find themselves talking at cross-purposes. Discussions between philosophers and psychologists about concepts have sometimes been frustrating and counterproductive because the two fields of inquiry focus on different issues.”[41] This is obviously to do with academic reputation as opposed to finding any real answers and the consequences of this is any findings tend to get over looked or lost despite numerous examples and the result is academic reputations tend to get enhanced as opposed to them suffering, which isn’t such a bad thing, but the only problem is that the final answer lies elsewhere. For an example of this see the latest work in cognitive science workings on the construct of a concept which tends to be drawn into philosophy, a poor choice, and not even an answerable one.” The difficulty of defining concept raises the issue of whether it is useful scientific construct.” The study of conceptual processing will be best served by discovering and describing the relevant mechanisms, rather than arguing about the meaning of lay terms.” So when one looks at the particular issues of ‘knowledge’ and how it is constructed in a given society it is by no means certain that you are going to get any satisfactory answer which should be much easier if, and only if, there is an agreed system of studying this pressing problem! The most important thing is this there is something to work with namely the concept and the writer is quite correct in saying one must study the relevant ‘mechanism’ rather than when the term of the concept becomes ‘normalised’ after the event has happen! Once the concept becomes ‘normalised’ (disseminated under complex knowledge codes) under any event it is too late, the damage is done. No one could or (not successfully) would argue that human knowledge, and what counts as (scientific knowledge) knowledge, as opposed to myth stems from the brain and the ability to transfer this knowledge via human speech and written thought, a whole set of complex tasks have to be completed first before it can be counted as ‘true knowledge.’ In the scientific world such as empirical knowledge, data or evidence serve as the first point of call in regards accountable knowledge. To this effect much work is needed in this field and much fault with the data as much as the working ‘empirical‘ model:” Although a modal approaches to knowledge have dominated cognitive science since the cognitive revolution, researchers increasingly find fault with them. The lack of direct empirical evidence for amodal symbols is also a problem. Conversely, researchers increasingly report that evidence that knowledge is grounded in modality specific systems, and see how these systems could help to implement a fully functional conceptual system. Clearly, much further work is necessary to establish these claims. Not only is further behavioural and neural evidence required, so are computational implementations. A broad cognitive science approach is essential to understanding the conceptual system." [42]

The Biology Of Fear[edit]

"Genetic factors seem to play a role in the development in anxiety disorders in humans. In familial studies, twin studies and adoption studies show genetic variances of 20 to 40 %. The same was found questionnaire variables such as neuroticism. Fear conditioning ability and predisposition to learn fear responses were extensively studied in animals. In rodents, fear processes or anxiety measured in the open field test or avoidance conditioning have revealed a strong genetic basis explaining most of the interindividual variance. However, the genes responsible for that trait have not yet been identified. The situation is different to antisocial personality disorder and criminal behaviour. Assuming that a deficit in anticipatory fear conditioning is the central symptom from which all consequent social problems follow, all evidence ranging from twin to adoption studies and gene sequencing suggests a moderate to strong genetic variance increases further. Whether this is related to genetic fear conditioning remains to be seen.”[43]

Although this makes interesting reading one can see that this ‘Biology of the Biopolitics of fear' has now become rooted in life and scientific experimentation but the question must be asked; at what price is human fear used against them to in order to control them? It is certainly a grey area. There certainly seems to be a concerted effort with regards fear into making humans conform to certain moral practices and without doubt there is much material available in this area.

Take for instance an interesting article written in 2005, where the renowned Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker was one of the guest speakers, when describing ‘neuromorality’ as personal responsibility. But, the most interesting point is how can we "salvage the core of responsibility" without such mystical notions? For Pinker, the answer is to shift the focus from the unanswerable question of whether an act was truly "freely chosen" to whether the perpetrator has a normally functioning brain with a normal response to the stimuli of reward and punishment. Thus, responsibility really means deterrability: the capacity to understand that if we harm others, we will suffer the consequences. Pinker asserted that we already use such an approach in practice. Cases in which we do not punish harmful actions because we don't assign moral responsibility to the perpetrator happen to be just the kinds of cases in which punishment cannot deter similar acts: when the harm was accidental, or when the perpetrator is too young or too mentally ill to be deterred by the threat of punishment. Even "abstract justice"-seeking to impose punishment when it's clearly not cost-effective for society and when, as with elderly Nazi war criminals, there's no chance of recidivism-ultimately serves utilitarian ends, since creating exemptions for some crimes would be too inviting to scofflaws.”[44]

Notice that the punishment, even with ‘abstract’ justice of Nazi war criminals would not be cost effective to the state because (a) old age and (b) there is simply no chance of recidivism. However, this is not what distributive justice is concerned with it is more to do with social control and not entirely to do with meeting justifiable punishment. Cost would not come into it, it has found a new host in which the shift into many areas, not entirely of its own making can keep the cogs of the surveillance system working. It is not about finding a nirvana but adjusting socially with newfound social practices. “Pinker noted, somewhat ambivalently, that "the thirst for retribution"-punishment as "just deserts" and a way to right the moral balance—may be inherent in human nature, and a legal system that does not satisfy this need may never command enough respect to be effective.”[45]The reader should take note, which has already been mentioned earlier in this section, the human mind has now entered a new phase in which, the ‘social control of the mind ‘is paramount, which is more to do with manipulating (not perverting) information (with regards what goes in it) than readily available information. Which, in turn, adds to the ‘Biopolitics of Fear’. Reason then is at the heart of retributive justice, because man is a moral animal, he has responsibilities to towards others, both as an individual and towards society in general. This is generally accepted as the concept for the law’s concept as a person.” Rationality is the touchstone of responsibility. Only agents capable of rationality can use legal and moral rules as potential reasons for action”.[46] Obviously this only gives out what has been accepted and taken for granted when regarding law,nothing about its inner workings so one can only assume that,barring agreed investigation into the problem relative to the information that has been uncovered but that doesn’t tell the full story,’ 'it seeks what it tries to hide!’ Rules as anyone should know have to be formulated in order who is responsible to whom and who is not. We know that rules can only be agreed and formulated upon when a process of normalisation has been established, set in place and put into work as normal (and if necessary, imposed). But to make those rules work (such as the case of agents) an overwhelming complex set of rules (a legal hierarchy) which establish those set of rules, while it still remains unconvincing as to who frames those rules but it is them(those who frame the rules,the legistration process).And it is only them alone who have the secret to those rules.While the social and behavioural sciences have failed to identify its ‘form, structure, organisation and more importantly its working relationship within a power/knowledge context.It still remains to be seen whether these sciences (possiably a challenge for the Social and Behavioural Sciences) can reveal anything new and ground breaking,which is most unfortunate for the critical theorist such as Foucault and his admirers.Which becames a shame,and alas the field of study becomes all the more poorer for it;sadly what gets produced is sterile reworkings of the same ideas, which literally offer and challenge nothing. All in the name of ‘empirical’ working knowledge which in all control the productive discourse in the name of ‘truth.’

"There are many paths to the evolution of human cooperation, affiliation, large-scale collective identity, and state formation, and the activities that involve the dispersal of public goods constitute just one of those paths. Still, public goods seem to be at the heart of the rationale for state formation. Furthermore, their provisions in the form of state institutions remain to be fully explained.”[47]

Summary and Conclusions[edit]

Summary[edit]

In explaining any conclusion and summary to an article one must consider various propositions such as surveillance against an idea as so powerful as surveillance that has been accepted and taken for granted for so long and has been relatively left unchallenged while been entered into the lexicon of many culture's and society's language and discourse.It is very powerful and persuasive also,it would take a very brave man (or a churlish one) after considering all the available evidence that has been offered,to go against the presented evidence,albeit very new(from his or her point of view).By successfully creating a 'dummy' or docile proletariat and transplanting their wish to be 'normal',as opposed to 'pathological';and because of this desire from the entire population that everyone would like to be considered 'normal'and whilst it could be claimed that the state machinery has been successful at creating this desirability[48][49][50].

Conclusions[edit]

By disciplining its subjects via an hidden and obscure process of prison reform and 'criminal justice',and by creating a geographical enclave,where humans are herded into pens via self imagined territorial borders,imposed by treaty,military means and 'international law'which the general population believe belongs to them by 'birthright' and to compound matters even further laying claim to territory via nationalistic concepts although the overwhelming majority of the population own absolutely nothing within these proclaimed terrortories;which obviously form part and parcel of all large population group behaivour.By creating a system of legitimate points of entry (legitimate from the point of view of enforcement agencies imposed by law), Passport's and visa's, which the machinary of human 'normality' concedes to by manipulation,by creating a vast (and a pool of the industrial reserve army;the unemployed who cannot gain access to the labour market because of the fact of eating into the pool of surplus value,mainly costs[51])population of 'workers',who have no choice but to work for a living in return for a subsistence monetary wage[52][53][54].By denying them(the working population) any free access and rights to the goods and service that they produce, because the productive forces that produce those goods are privately owned,you have ultimately the machinery of the state.Which is why the state governs less because of the docility of the populace and using their willingness to be subjugated as normal(as opposed to pathological),this wiliness to be subjugated is used as a weapon against them.Which has created modern state governance Could one ask any historian,with any confidence:What is the reasoning behind recidivism?How is the criminal class just separated by the great divide of those who are encouraged to 'take on the system'(and in so doing so sow the seeds of their own recidivism),and those who do not,the vast majority of the general population have never been into prison but,almost exclusively,regardless of class,still have surveillance hanging over them in the form of CCTV, where exit is considered undesirable nor is it an option,and in any case you would be seen as foolish to think otherwise.It would appear that the answer from any historian would be short coming,we would have to look elsewhere,either in the archive,or in the journals of criminology and brain science.And while credulity has been held in dispute(namely Foucault,his allies or any sympathetic readers)[55]far too much evidence is still readily available to counter that claim,regardless of any credulity (gulability) and opinion[56] History cannot be so easily distorted[57][58]we simply have to accept that it is 'an idea who's time has come',but nor for that matter can a narrator(which essentially what an historian is,a constructor,or storyteller of the 'mythical past')give us the clue to humanity's freedom either.Almost certainly prison recidivism has not been driven primarily by a parallel increase in crime,but is more driven by 'policy choice'.[59]

External Links[edit]

  • Amnesty International USA Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security and Human Rights in the

USA, New York:Amnesty International USA,(2004) http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/report/rp_report.pdf

  • Contracting For Imprisonment In The Federal Prison System (2005)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211990.pdf

References[edit]

  1. ^ Geographical Review Vol 97(3) (pp.389-403) (2007)
  2. ^ Theorizing Surveillance p.36
  3. ^ Geographical Review p.394
  4. ^ Geographical Review p.391
  5. ^ The Panoptic Sort pp.7-9.
  6. ^ The Impact On Video Systems On Architecture
  7. ^ Theorizing Surveillance p.71
  8. ^ Prison Education Program p.3
  9. ^ Inmate Recidivism As A Measure Of Private Prison Performance pp.483-491
  10. ^ Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 1994 US State Department Of Justice p.4
  11. ^ Contracting for Imprisonment in the Federal Prison System:(2005)
  12. ^ State Prison Expenditures (2001)
  13. ^ Justice Reinvestment State Brief:Texas (2007)
  14. ^ Ibid p.2
  15. ^ The Sentencing Project: New Incarceration Figures: pp.1-3
  16. ^ International Rates Of Incarceration p.1
  17. ^ ibid p.1
  18. ^ Unlocking America p.1 Comparative International Rates Of Incarceration p.1
  19. ^ The PEW Centre
  20. ^ World Prison Population (Seventh Edition) p.1 (pp.1-6) October (2006)
  21. ^ ibid p.1
  22. ^ ibid p.1
  23. ^ Testimony Of Marc Mauer May 2 1990
  24. ^ Letter On The Progress Of The Sciences (See chapter Utilizing Surplus Criminals) pp.76-88
  25. ^ Theorizing Surveillance p.5
  26. ^ International Rates Of Incarceration p.6
  27. ^ The Surveillance Society p.4
  28. ^ ibid p.6
  29. ^ Neuroethics: An Agenda For Neuroscience and Society p.150 (pp.149-153) 2003
  30. ^ Ibid p.150
  31. ^ Oxford English Dictionary p.2609
  32. ^ ibid pp.72-73
  33. ^ Risk Analysis p.187 (pp.187-202) Vol 27(1) February(2007)
  34. ^ A Test Of The Normalization Hypothesis p.5
  35. ^ Nature Reviews Neuroscience p.303 (pp.300-311) Vol 8 April (2007)
  36. ^ Ibid p.304
  37. ^ Ibid p.304
  38. ^ Ibid p.304
  39. ^ Ibid p.300
  40. ^ BDNF Variability in Opioid Addicts and Response to Methadone Treatment: Genes, Brain and Behavior p.515 (pp.515-522)
  41. ^ Sortal Concepts, Object Individuation, and Language p.399 (pp.399-406) Trends In Cognitive Sciences Vol. 11 (9) (2007)
  42. ^ Grounding Conceptual Knowledge In Modality Specific Systems p.90 (pp.84-90) Trends In Cognitive Science Vol. 7 (2) February (2003)
  43. ^ Fear Conditioning: Social and Behavioural Sciences Vol. 8 p.5423 (pp.5422-5425) (2001)
  44. ^ Reason August September 2005 p.18
  45. ^ Ibid pp.18-19
  46. ^ American Enterprise Institute p.83
  47. ^ Politics and The Life Sciences p.2 Vol. 26 (2) (2007)
  48. ^ 25 Edward III Stat.5.c.1,2 (1351)
  49. ^ John Barrell:Imagining The Kings Death p.413(2000)
  50. ^ Benjamin Hobhouse:An Enquiry Into What Constitutes The "Crime Of Imagining and Compassing The King's Death" (1795)
  51. ^ Karl Marx:Capital Vol 1 pp.283-411 Marx gives numerous examples
  52. ^ The Problem Of Money:African Agency and Western Medicine In Northern Ghana (2007)
  53. ^ An Introduction To Human Geography pp.364-374(2008)
  54. ^ Karl Marx:Capital Volume 1 pp.675-706(Penguin Edition 1990)
  55. ^ The Times Literary Supplement(2007)
  56. ^ One in 100 Behind Bars In America 2008 (2008).
  57. ^ The Times Literary Supplement(2007)
  58. ^ The Genetic Legacy Of The Mongols:The American Journal Of Human Genetics pp.717-721(2003)
  59. ^ One In 100 Behind Bars In America 2008 pp.3-4.

Bibliography[edit]

The Biopolitical Justification For Geosurveillance: Geographical Review pp.389-403 Volume 97 (3) July 2007

The Panopticon's Changing Geography: Geographical Review pp.307-323 Volume 97 (3) July 2007

Modelling Values For Anti-Terrorism Analysis: Risk Analysis pp.585-606 Volume 27 (3) June 2007

A Quantitative Assessment Of The Risks From Illegally Imported Meat Contaminated With Foot and Mouth Disease Virus To Great Britain:Risk Analysis pp.187-202 Volume 27 (1) Februray 2007

A Report On The Surveillance Society David M Wood Editor (2006)

A Comparative International Rates Of Incarceration: An Examination Of Causes And Trends Marc Mauer (2003)

Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon And Beyond Edited By David Lyon (2006)

Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 1994 US State Department Of Justice Patrick A Langan

Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released In 1987 (1994)

PEW Centre On The States One In 100 Behind Bars In America (2008)

The Sentencing Project: New Incarceration Figures: Thirty Three Years Of Consecutive Growth (2006)

Unlocking America: Why And How To Reduce America's Prison Population (2007)

Beyond The Prison Gates: The State Of Parole In America Jeremy Travis and Sarah Lawrence (2002)

Testimony Of Marc Mauer Before The Subcommittee On Legislation And National Security (1990)

Prison Education Program Participation And Recidivism: A Test Of The Normalization Hypothesis Miles D Harer (1995)

The Problem Of Money:African Agency and Western Medicine In Northern Ghana:Berhard M.Bierlich (2007)

Letter On The Progress Of The Sciences Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1752)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Richardlord50/Geosurveillance_(Critical_Theory)&oldid=348504257"