Anyone wanting to comment on punishment after the 1970s has to begin with Michel Foucault. It seems like every book or article I read has to first contextualize their work with regard to Foucault and then move on from there.
Foucault was admittedly a strange cat. Aside from weird sexual practices he has often been criticized by sociologists, historians, and philosophers for his unorthodox methods of research and writing. I think the best way to get over these shortcomings in Foucault is to read him as he claimed to be; not a sociologist, a historian, or a philosopher, just a mere commentator. I’m tempted to put forth the claim that if Foucault were just getting started today he’d be a documentary film maker rather than a writer.
Another commentator who I’ve just recently come across is Anthony Daniels, penname Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple was a doctor in a British prison for several years before recently retiring but he has written several fascinating opinion editorials in The City Journal, The Spectator, and for The Manhattan Institute. His writings span several topics including crime, punishment, culture, and morality.
Anyone familiar with Foucault and Dalrymple both will notice several similarities between areas of interest, and their casual empiricism yet they are diametrically opposite on their cultural value scales. While Foucault was somewhat post-modern and deconstructivist in his attitudes towards social behaviors, Dalrymple is a staunch social conservative quick to point out the immaturity and vulgarity of modern cultural trends.
Below is an interview with Foucault in two parts:

And finally, here is a link to a Dalrymple interview. See for yourself the differently similar men behind society’s current view of punishment.