Justifying Punishment In The Classical School Of Utilitarianism

Incapacitation, the removal of the offender from society to prevent them from harming society further, has been in use since ancient times. The incapacitation may be in the form of exile, penal colonies, prison, or placement in a mental institution. Regardless of the form, incapacitation places its focus on the future behavior of the offender and on the characteristics of the offender. It assumes that since that majority of crime is committed by a small number of criminals, removing them from society will reduce crime. What this theory does not take in to

Crime have existed over many centuries, different eras affect the flow of crime and within those eras. Furthermore amongst individuals, there was different way of thinking into how to reduce and eliminate occurred. The act of crime cannot be eliminated, as different individuals have different perspectives of crime and for theses reasons, have different methods of advocating and eliminating crime. This essay will firstly explore the views of Classical Theory, by looking at Cesane Beccaria, the father of Classical theory and Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarian and explore how there influences are incorporated into laws and regulations, around the world. Secondly, Positivism theory explores the biological, psychological and environment

In other words, a person may be tempted to commit a crime if there not a strong enough deterrent in place. Hence, Bentham’s solution to crime control was to address this pleasure/pain response by imposing strict penalties proportional to the seriousness of the crime committed to discourage people from offending (Von Hirsch, 1992). Although he did not support the death penalty, punishment for committing crime was considered by Bentham as the lesser of two evils, necessary for the health of society and the duty of the government to impose (Bull, 2010; Hudson, 2003). Punishment, for Bentham, was a way to ensure “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Rosen, 2003, p 221).

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.

Philosophical utilitarianism is the view that people’s behaviour is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain (Newburn, 2017). In other words, crimes occur when an individual weigh the risks and benefits of an act, and realizes that the criminal act outweighs the consequences, hence the punishment (Law et al, 2009). This is also known as the pain-pleasure principle (Newburn, 2017), which simultaneously aids in explaining the need for a more just penal policy, where the idea of punishment is utilized in order to deter criminal behaviour (Law et al, 2009) as well as the overall existence of crime. Throughout his book, Rollins continuously attributes his “satisfaction from seeing destruction” (Rollins, 2011:24) to the maximization of pleasure through the “amazing adrenaline rush” (Rollins, 2011:38) going as far as to refer to himself as an “adrenaline junkie” (Rollins, 2011:25). Rollins breaks the law throughout the course of the book, some examples including his tendency to “set fires, smash windows and steal” (Rollins, 2011p:25) in order to gain excitement and stimulate “the adrenaline rush and feeling of power” (Rollins, 2011:38), hence ensuring the maximization of pleasure to the extent where the consequences, the pain, were forgotten. Therefore, as the pain-pleasure principle is purely based on self interest (Carrabine, 2014), Rollins arguably made his

Reductivism is a progressive theory: it seeks to explain punishment by its alleged future consequences. Punishment people are important method in the justice system and help to control crime by reducing crime rate and protect public safety The Penal System, 2013). Reductivist arguments are supported by the form of moral perspective recognised as utilitarianism that first was explained by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). His ideas were to influence the reforms of public administration made during the nineteenth century, however his reform and studies are still at the centre of academic debate, especially as regards social policy, legal positivism (J. Bentham, 1986). John Stuart Mill who was the most significant utilitarian person, identified good

Crime was seen by Durkheim as inevitable, he argued that a constant level of crime can be functional and only becomes harmful to society when crime rates are abnormally high or low. According to Durkheim the purpose of punishment is not to eliminate crime completely but rather to maintain the norms and values of the majority, in order to keep a relative amount of “social order”.

Incapacitation is punishment of offenders that commit crimes and are locked away in prisons so that future crimes are not an issue. Offenders can be confined within secure institutions and effectively prevented from committing additional harm against society for the duration of their sentence (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2013). With rehabilitation punishment, the main idea is to treat, equip with the skills, and return individual to a crime free lifestyle. People that who commit lesser offenses may receive long prison sentences if experts believe the offenders needs a longer period to become rehabilitated (Clear, Cole, & Reisig,

Throughout time, the use of punishment has changed drastically. Not only has the actual infliction of punishment changed, the reasoning behind this punishment has also changed. There have been numerous scholars, educators, and researchers that have presented various theories on the reasoning behind societal punishment. Some of these theories are closely similar, however some are drastically different. It is important to note that these theorists have broad perceptions that can be rooted back to specific time periods throughout history. Societal punishment is defined as, “punishment being a complex social institution, shaped by the ensemble of social and historical forces and having a range of effects that reach well beyond the population of offenders” (Garland, 1991).

What is Utilitarianism? The Criminal justice system addresses the Utilitarianism method, because the method plays a major role in society it is a normative ethical theory that spaces the locus of right and wrong uniquely on the consequences of electing one action or policy over other actions or policies within the criminal justice system that can handle a complete department or community. As such, it changes outside the latitude of one's individual welfares and takes into justification the goods of others in the public within a law enforcement stand point. The Utilitarian theory was created from John Stuart Mill accustomed the more self-indulgent propensities in Bentham's philosophy by stressing that it is not the amount of pleasure or satisfaction,

The criminal justice system exemplifies how society uses punishment to discourage negative and immoral behaviors. As liberal establishments move towards enhancing freedom and justice, many are beginning to have second thoughts regarding their view on the death penalty. However, the percentage of Americans that still favors the death penalty believe it is absolutely necessary because it deters instances of murder, plus, it offers the only just punishment that is proportionate to the crime committed. The Retentionists rely on two main theories as justification for the concurrence of capital punishment: The Retributivism Theory and the Utilitarianism Theory. The theory of Retributivism, also known, as the doctrine of “just desert” is the belief

Dr. R.B. Brandt sheds light on the fact that the way society punishes humans in the modern criminal law system holds within itself shortcomings. The Yale graduate, argues that other forms of punishment, such as, required community service, probation, or even a reduction in the length of prison sentences benefit society more as a whole, thus appeasing the utilitarian mindset. R.B. Brandt’s target audience seems to be individuals interested in alternative forms of punishment in addition to people curious about utilitarian ideals within the scope of criminal law. This citation supports the idea that imprisonment is a flawed system and that criminals need to be exposed to some other form of punishment, especially rehabilitative methods, to pay

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

The utilitarian theory of punishment is another approach to the criminal justice system. Richard B. Brandt believes that this type of punishment is frequently found in Great Britain and the United States. He believes that utilitarian’s differ in their thoughts as to what is the “ideal” system would be but the punishment extended should be fair and that the threat of punishment may be more important than the punishment itself. Brandt discusses the difference in the prosecution and defense used to obtain maximum utility and how the punishment should be implemented and how to mitigate the punishment.