In the article the analysis of penitenciary problematics in a philosophical heritage of Michel Foucault as the French philosopher of XX century is done. The conclusion about the clarification of the philosopher`s creativity presence of significant circle questions which mention the crime and punishment problems is also made. Foucault traces the new model becoming of a crime and punishment perception in a modern society. Characteristic features of this model are its significant mitigation, and the emergence and establishment of imprisonment as the main form of punishment. Execution of criminal and disciplinary functions is assigned to prison, as the mechanism of re-education of criminals.

Michel Foucault devotes enough attention to penitentiary issues, developing the concept of changing the perception model of crime and punishment in the society`s transition from feudalism to modernity.

Characteristic features of a new model of punishment are its significant “humanization” and the emergence and establishment of imprisonment as the main form of punishment. Punishment is perceived as a compensation of a loss to society, which is determined by the proportionality between the gravity of a crime and a time period of imprisonment. The subject of punishment is the offender`s identity but not the body.

At the same time, the idea of ​​tolerance extends to a person, who has committed a crime and intolerance to the crime itself. The main purpose of the punishment along with the prevention of deviant behavior among population and the redemption of a crime by the convicts is the offender`s resocialization and re-education. The fulfillment of the mentioned functions in modern society is assigned to prison, as an “effective” mechanism for reforming criminals in the eyes of authorities and society.

Key words: history of philosophy, the French philosophy, a crime and a punishment, modern society, humanism, education.

REFERENCES

1. Avtonomova, N. (1972), “The concept of “archaeological knowledge” M. Foucault”, Questions of philosophy, № 10, PP. 142–150.
2. Avtonomova, N. (1978), “From the “archeology of knowledge” to the “genealogy of power”, Questions of philosophy, № 2, PP. 145–152.
3. Blansho, M. (2002), Michel Foucault, as I imagine him, Sphinx, St. Petersburg, 375 p.
4. Vizgin, V. (1995), “Michel Foucault – Theorist of Knowledge Civilization”, Questions of philosophy, № 4, PP. 116–126.
5. Vizgin, V., “Ontological background of the “genealogical” history of Michel Foucault”, Questions of philosophy, № 1, PP. 170–176.
6. Delez, Zh. (1998), Foucault, Dialog, Moscow, 248 p.
7. Miller, Dzh. (2002), Be cruel! Intellectual biography of Michel Foucault, Logos, № 5-6, PP. 331–381.
8. Mikhel, D. (1999), Michel Foucault in subjectivization strategies: from the “History of Madness” to “Care of Yourself”, Postscript, Saratov, 238 p.
9. Ryklin, M. (1994), Sexuality and power: Michel Foucault’s anti-repressive hypothesis, Logos, № 5, PP. 197–206.
10. Flivbyerg, B. (2002), “Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society”, Questions of philosophy, № 2, PP. 137–157.
11. Foucault, M. (1999), Oversee and punish, Printservice, Moscow, 420 p.
12. Furs, V. (2002), The controversy of Habermas and Foucault and the idea of critical social theory, Logos, № 2, PP. 120–152.
    
    [collapse]