Two Tortures

Before this class, when the word torture was mentioned I would have never really thought of any difference between one way or torutre over another. I mean sure I was aware that there were different way in which to inflict the torture, but I never realized it was done to pursue a different approach.

The torture in which Foucault speaks of is more the "classic torture" in which it was done in order to serve justice through realization and truth. This is what torture is most often thought of. A way to inflict pain in order for people to see that this person was guilty, the reason they were found as such, as well a means to serve justice through a fair mean. I guess what I am trying to say is that this was a way of dealing with a crime only after the person was found guilty... it was more fair than the torture spoken about in Kafka's writting.

The major difference between Foucault and Kafka is that Kafka's torture in the penal colony was not really a fair means of justice. Of course it was "fair" in the colony, but htis was a secluded colony that had its own standards. The man was put to death by torture without even allowing him to defend himself. This is not classic torture nor is it a fiar means of justice. Even if the individual is actually guilty as charged, he should be able to at least make a statement... even if it is even to apologize to the society. The man should not be forced to learn of his "wrong doing" as he is dying, especially if it by means of reading the inscription that is being engraved into his body.

This is the major difference between Kafka's torture and Foucault.