This is extraordinarily nitpicky, but you might be mixing Crime and Punishment with Discipline and Punish. But anyway!!

I've found hints of Foucault in so many things, but it's so deeply ingrained that you can't even tell if the person knows they're referencing him.

The strongest example I have is in an undergrad class, where my (amazing) professor managed to turn "Contemporary English Literature," an English credit, into a class where we watched every season of The Wire. We watched multiple episodes before each class, and supplemented it with Discipline and Punish. It was both incredibly challenging and eye-opening, and not something I expected from an English class.

I'm not sure if you intended this to be more area-specific, but if I may -- since I note you write 'generally or specifically' -- you might like to look at a response I posted to a similar question a few days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3duv58/what_do_historians_think_of_foucaults_discipline/

The main chunk extracted:

His influence is hard to overstate ... he's frequently accused (and rightfully so) for his very selective historical sources, and for not doing sufficient archival work, but in general he remains an essential touchpoint for almost every historical work on punishment and incarceration [...] There are large caveats to these citations, which are often empirical objections, such as those pointed out by Spierenburg (Spectacle of Suffering, 1984). [...] I think we have to pair him with other major theorists, in particular Norbert Elias, before anything truly productive is produced. For one, his claims of the early-modern executions' production of 'terror' for the public to reinforce sovereign authority ('Part 1: Torture' of Discipline and Punish) draw on Damiens' excruciating and drawn-out death - a very extraordinary case - to make more generalised arguments, which don't really hold up in ordinary acts of punishment (see e.g. Friedland's Seeing Justice Done or Bastien's L'exécution publique à Paris au XVIIIe siècle, amongst many others, for varied challenges to this interpretation, including retribution, communal expiation, a return to deterrence and state consolidation, and so on). In this latter sense of its link to the state, secondly, you also need those like Elias to help link punishment to more concrete institutions and systems beyond Foucault's symbolic focus on sovereignty. Those like Spierenburg have therefore done amazing work to reinforce Foucault's thesis by combining it with Elias, while drawing analytical attention away from the former's almost too-blind emphasis on France, as well as underscoring how other forms of punitive spectacularity - and not executions and tortures - grew in strength in the 18th century (and furthered in more recent work by, as mentioned, Bastien, Friedland, Porret, Chavaud, etc.).