C.S. Lewis and The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.

“We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.” C.S. Lewis

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

The second thesis of pure moralistic retributivism, that moral guilt is a sufficient condition for punishment, is far more contentious (Feinber 647). One of the common counterarguments to this point which Feinberg notes is similar to the old addage “two wrongs don’t make a right”. If punishment is justified irrespective of future consequences, and it is assumed that the chosen punishment (i.e. prison time, fine) isn’t itself a good, than how can this negative action be justified if it doesn’t necessarily bring about some goodness? Retributivists often respond by using the example of sadness as a response to suffering. Neither sadness nor suffering are inherently good, but sadness in response to someone else’s suffering is uniquely appropriate (Feinberg 647). In the same way that sadness is the appropriate response to suffering or teachers grade is the appropriate response to a students performance on a test, punishment is the appropriate response to moral guilt on the basis of justice. The concept of “justice”, the assignment of action on the basis of desert alone, will become imporant later.

Most comic books involve a hero who saves the day even the world. In March Book two, the main characters not only changed the world but they made history and something that will never be forgotten. In March Book Two by John Lewis, you basically go through what he went through when he was fighting for his rights. You will see all the pain he and the freedom riders went through, but you will also see the way he changed the United States of America.

      and Aquinas), but also draws on the wisdom of the East, including Confucius and the sages of Hinduism.

Justice, as properly understood within western legal tradition, must, as necessary condition, seek to establish truth, ensure the protection of liberties and have in place procedural safeguards to ensure that only those who are guilty of a crime are punished. While this may seem to be only an ideal—in the broadest sense—justice cannot, and indeed must not, stray to far from these principles. Yes, it is acknowledged that in some instances there will be individuals and cases that fall through the cracks however, it is precisely for this reason that capital punishment must not be reinstated.

By answering the timeless question, “Are humans inherently good or evil?”, one can then gain an even greater understanding of the thing that is us. Therefore, history and society can prove that the answer is in fact that humans are inherently evil. Now, that was all without using religion, but religion provides an excellent view and explanation into the world of humanity. Presuming that the statement above is axiomatic, then religion has an issue that science and secularism do not have to deal with. The problem is why would an all-powerful God allow his creation to suffer under the disease known as sin. Even if we believe that humanity brought a sinful nature onto itself, why would God place the ability to sin into our capability? That is

Almost all general philosophies of punishment contribute different methods for determining any punishment’s fit with crime. Retributivism, a philosophy, broadly justifies the punishment that a person receive for breaking the law, through justice and the principle of desert. A common form of expressing the ideology of retribution is “an eye for an eye.” This theory consists of two main parts, the offender deserving punishment and the punishment should ft the crime. I will discuss the claim made by Retrbituivisist’s through focusing on whether Retributivist’s assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the