Retributivism Vs Utilitarian Theory

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

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.

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.

A very simple, yet popular and long-standing goal of sentencing is retribution. Criminals are punished according to their crime because they deserve punishment. The idea that a certain crime equals a certain punishment is very simple and could

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

The four justifications for punishment include, “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). Retribution is when a person receives a punishment as a result for committing a crime (Reichel, 2013). This form of punishment is deemed necessary by society because a person deserves to pay for breaking the law (Reichel, 2013). “A goal of retribution is to retaliate for the wrong done in such a way that the nature of the punishment reflects the nature of the offense” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). That is why there are different sentences for different crimes because each deserves a certain punishment (Reichel, 2013). For example, a person who commits murder isn’t going to receive the same punishment as a person

"Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offense must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing" retribution, denunciation, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation which will all be discussed in this essay.

Punishment is the suffering, pain, or loss that serves at retribution. Others also say it is “the authoritative imposition of something unpleasant on a person in response to a behavior deemed to be wrong by an individual or group” (Hugo & McAnany, 2010). Some question when and why we should punish. Though easy to state, this question is difficult to answer and has lead to a variety of models of punishment. In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice.

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

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.

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.

It should be noted however that the classical school of thought has had an enduring influence as many legal systems are built on some of its key precepts. The idea of intent for example, emphasizes the importance of the state of mind of the individual and their capacity for making choices. Notions of proportionality in relation to punishment are