The role of theatricality/spectatorship in the understanding of judicial punishment and the state’s exercise of power

Shivatmika Prasad
Jul 14, 2024
5 min read

Updated: Jul 21, 2024

Theatre, derived from the Greek word theatron, translates to “a place of seeing”. Courtrooms and methods of punishments for delivering justice have over the years assumed the characteristics of a theatrical play, showcasing elements of subjective interpretations, role performances and aesthetic appeal through architecture. This spectatorship involved in delivering judicial punishments has also become crucial to the state’s exercise of power. Through this essay, I will be examining the above elements with reference to ideas put forward by Albert Camus and Michel Foucault on the same. The architectural build of courtrooms bares a striking resemblance to that of a theatre, with shared elements of procedure, performance and participation of the audience. In both a theatre’s stage and a courtroom, the audience is seated in a way that allows the “key performers” to be at a focal point of view, with all the performers - the judge, jury and lawyers, playing a pre - determined role in the proceedings. They both include “performances” that include pre - written speeches in the form of opening statements or scripts, following a defined structure with strict decorum in place. Body language, emotional sentiments and delivery of speeches all play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the “performance” and delivering the message they aim to deliver to the audience. The cases presented are nothing short of storylines, with characters, witnesses, plot twists and turning points, all to invoke a certain feeling of interest and subsequent empathy in the minds of the viewers. Moreover, gavels, wigs, robes and flags not only exhibit procedural formality, but also add theatrical and symbolic relevance, like how the presence of national emblems right above the judge’s chair can often be interpreted as the power the state exercises over the judiciary. But beyond the visibly noticeable role that theatrics play in courtrooms, this spectatorial power becomes essential in exercising power and controlling narratives. Law is what law does, and is thus the ultimate performative institution. Justice is not viewed as something that simply exists, but as something that is done. Thus, as a system that is dedicated to regulating and generating certain kinds of behaviours, “law functions as a repository of social performances, past and present.” This spectatorship element of law has great historical significance. Public hangings, death penalties, poisoning, guillotines and burnings not only become a way to punish the criminal, but also reinstate fear in the minds of the spectators of the state's authority and power. Beyond maintaining law, order and social conduct, they become tools of fear that the state often uses to control the people and assert authority. Justice thus becomes a spectacle, and crime, a drama, having a belittling and dehumanising effect not only on the offenders, but also the innocent who witness the normalisation of violence in an attempt to deliver justice at the hands of the state. In his essay titled “Reflections on the Guillotine”, Albert Camus debunks the myth of spectatorial performances of law like capital punishments slashing down crime rates by providing relevant statistical evidence, and thus forces the reader to reflect on the true purpose that such punishments actually serve. “Camus argues that the ultimate test of a society's morality lies not in its treatment of the virtuous, but in its treatment of the transgressor—especially those who have committed the gravest of offences.” Protection of human dignity, according to him, is thus incompatible with such public displays of punishment where the general public is encouraged to witness the physical torture of another citizen at the hands of the state, in an attempt to establish control and generate fear of consequences. Through his novel, “The Stranger '', Camus states that law punishes those who behave outside of the dominant discourse not only to prevent crimes but also perpetuate its own power, and thus is not always a reflection or source of morality. His protagonist Meursault’s inability to hysterically cry being used as a tool against him to show that he lacked remorse also conveys to the reader how crucial displays of human emotions and theatrical dramatics are not only to the delivery of punishment, but also the outcome that leads to it. Further, in “Discipline and Punish”, Michel Foucault argues that state sanctioned public executions and similar forms of punishment turn discipline into a culture of spectacle. This physical suffering of the wrongdoers becomes proof of the state or sovereign’s authority by leaving a long lasting, traumatic impression in the mind of the viewer. Punishment thus becomes an act of revenge rather than an act of prevention. These displays of punishment, according to him “possess an unmistakable mass marketing component” as they display power relations and authoritative control. The public participation that is not only allowed, but encouraged reinforces the false narrative that the gruesome punishment is the collective sentiment of the society and is sanctioned not only to represent the will of the state, but also the will of the people, further used as a tool to add legitimacy to the state’s conduct. He argues that since crimes represent the inability of the state or sovereign to be able to discipline and control people, “the public execution is to be understood not only as a juridical, but also as a political ritual.” The ruthlessness becomes a symbol of its power, and the entire act put on display becomes a political strategy. In modern times, even though the role of spectatorship has evolved as states have transitioned from violent methods of execution to sentencing, capital punishments, death sentences and media trials are very much a part of judicial decisions. How media trials lead to courtroom cases becoming public spectacles can be witnessed in the case of The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, or thousands of other cases where the accused is sentenced to capital punishment as his death is witnessed by the accusers. Theatrics and spectatorship thus become ways of intimidating citizens, by weaponizing justice as a tool to generate fear. Bibliography

Law journals Nikova J, ‘The concept of ‘theatricality’ in legal performance with respect to musicians and the way they engage with the law’ [2017] Elsa Spain Law Review http://lawreview.elsa-spain.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Art5.pdf accessed 22 June 2024~ Druzin BH and Wan AS, ‘The Theatre of Punishment: Case Studies in the Political Function of Corporal and Capital Punishment’ (2015) 14(3) Washington University Global Studies Law Review https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=law_globalstudies accessed 22 June 2024~ Shapiro S, ‘Michel Foucault’s Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison Reader/Workbook’ [2002] Warwick Undergraduate Modules https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/second/en229/marxfctintros_/foucault_reader.pdf accessed 22 June 2024~