251 retribution with abstract and codified punishments^^ These ideas embody the basic notions of the Classical School of criminal law, founded on the grounds of Kantian and Hegelian philosophies. Garland has pointed to the recurrent appearance of Weberian ideas in the accounts describing penal history, Foucault included. Penal processes have, thus, become increasingly monopolized and administered by central governmental agencies — in other words, bureaucratized — ever since the late eighteenth century. This development has meant that penal proceedings have become able to operate rather effectively and with a large number of offenders.'*^ Although direct, formal modes of repression of the liberal bourgeois type have become more lenient,'^^ they have, thus, also grown more impersonal and less visible. Thus, the principal aimof modern penal control and criminal lawis efficiency; letting no offender escape, the modern state endeavored to extend social control to cover situations of unlawful behavior as accurately as possible, designing the control measure according to the personal guilt of the wrongdoer. Instead of a show, penal control became a technique. The modern criminal law could not function, however, without parallel transformations on the side of the lawof proof. The rigid systemof legal proof was given up and replaced by a flexible system of free evaluation of evidence which allowed for the sophisticated concept of guilt furnished by classical bourgeois criminal law to be activated in practice. By and large, the development can be seen as a reflection of the emerging modern state, run by an efficient and anonymous bureaucracy, on penal control. As we have seen above, parallel with the bureaucratization and modernization of the Finnish administration, elements of classical criminal law began to be introduced in Finnish legal science around the middle of the nineteenth century through the texts of Johan Philip Palmén and Karl Gustaf Ehrström. In the texts of the “classicists,” the introduction of subjective elements into the theory of the crime seemed to offer newpossibilities for guiding society more effectively. The element of personal guilt suggested the possibility of deterring in advance; thus, general deterrence and special deterrence came to be promoted. For Ehrström, the purpose of punishment was threefold. Punishment served as a “deterrent of the masses,” to better the wrongdoer and to secure the safety of the state. Although for Ehströmthe utilarian purposes of the crime were still secondary - to him, Christian betterment stood in first place-, Mclossi - Pavarini 1981 p. 182. ■*6 Garland 1990 pp. 180-189. Kckkoncn - Ylikangas 1982 pp. 47-48. ■*** Spiercnburg 1984 pp. 205. Cohen, in fact, speaks of “a gradual expansion and intensification of the system; a dispersal of its mechanisms frommore closed to more open sites and a consequent increase in the invisibility of social control and the degree of its penetration into the social body.” Cohen 1985 pp. 83-84. W,thlberg 1989 p. 512.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=