Do you care to cite those conflicts? Are 18th century reformers beyond a mote of cynicism? That sentence isn't claiming to describe the entire world view of the reformers, but to specifically note that they would have been aware of the number of examples where the masses were not deterred by the spectacle of executions. (You seem to take offense with specificity in a claim?)
It is possible to declare the system of executions a travesty, while also observing that the lower classes are willing to phsyically intervene in them. Perhaps it is even possible that the reformers were made aware of the injustices by the lack of respect the lower classes demonstrated for them.
Perhaps a reformer with the goal of abolishing executions would pen a treatise that was justified in the moral terms of the ruling class, rather than based on the emotional state of the working class. One would look to address your audience after all. I'm not familiar with the cited reformers you claim are conflicting but it sounds more like aristocracy convincing aristocracy, rather than an aristocrat attempting to sway the masses with pamphlets.
I question whether you read this text in good faith, or are simply searching for bits you can pick out to summarize on a message board and construe as contradictions.
> I question whether you read this text in good faith...
What is good faith? You're picking a small (although perfectly valid -- re-read Part II for whatever quotes you need on the self-professed motives of penal reformers) objection pulled pretty much at random from my marginalia rather than addressing the more substantive complaints in my original post.
And even here your defense is speculative ("perhaps") and offered in a non-committal way that ironically conflicts with Foucault's own viewpoint by subsuming the problem in a moral framework ("travesty") rather than contextualizing it as a power struggle in an amoral Marxist context. So even if your defense is correct then Foucault's sweeping ontological statements are inappropriate and overbearing, which is part of my complaint.
If you want to focus on bigger ideas, I've posted four more major complaints in a post above. If you are able to explain what Foucault means without making his position sound absurd and/or contradicting his own writing, you'll have done a better job explaining his ideas than he did.
It is possible to declare the system of executions a travesty, while also observing that the lower classes are willing to phsyically intervene in them. Perhaps it is even possible that the reformers were made aware of the injustices by the lack of respect the lower classes demonstrated for them.
Perhaps a reformer with the goal of abolishing executions would pen a treatise that was justified in the moral terms of the ruling class, rather than based on the emotional state of the working class. One would look to address your audience after all. I'm not familiar with the cited reformers you claim are conflicting but it sounds more like aristocracy convincing aristocracy, rather than an aristocrat attempting to sway the masses with pamphlets.
I question whether you read this text in good faith, or are simply searching for bits you can pick out to summarize on a message board and construe as contradictions.