The Pierre Riviere case in the context of the conflict of discourses in Foucault

The Riviere file originates in the early Modern Age. In the file, discursive conflicts occur in the primary layer around the problematic of whether Riviere is a legal subject or a madman, in the axis of the discourses of law and psychiatry. This conflict of discourses also includes witness statements in the secondary layer file, newspaper reports, Riviere's interrogations and the text he wrote. Psychiatry objectifies madness by feeding off the change in medical perception during the transition from the medical tradition and the Modern Age, and begins to confine it to asylums; on the other hand, towards the end of the Classical Age, madness, social help, sense of pity, public disgrace, etc. It questions whether it is a subject of law with its internal discussions. With the Modern Age, the discourse of psychiatry, which has the motivation to produce positive knowledge and the medical status, begins to settle in the void created by these discussions; psychiatry becomes an expert witness in cases where traces of insanity are found. Thus, the discourses of psychiatry begin to gain effectiveness. However, in cases bearing the traces of insanity, the problem of whether the perpetrator is a subject of law or not continues. The Riviere file is also shaped by this problematic; In the primary layer, discourses of psychiatry characterize Riviere as mentally ill. The discourses of the law, on the other hand, describe Riviere first as a criminal; Then, with the influence of the discourses of psychiatry and other elements, he takes a step back in the problematic of whether Riviere is a legal subject or a madman. Ultimately, Riviere's sentence is reduced. Thus, in the Riviere file, it is revealed that the discourses of psychiatry are significantly influential in the primary layer and are largely settled in the gap in the problem of insanity and guilt.