The Utilitarian 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.

In the concluding passages of this Module I want to assess Kant’s moral theory in the context of how we ought to regard, and deal with, people who commit crimes. The utilitarian view tends to suggest that punishment is justifiable only insofar as it’s aim is to correct wrongdoers, not merely punishment them for punishment’s sake. Kant takes exception to this view. He believes in retributivism. Retributionists argue that offenders should be paid back for their misdeeds, not to reform them, but because they deserve to suffer for the harm they’ve caused others. Of course this opens up a flood of issues about the role and function of incarceration, capital punishment, and the whole judicial process. Kant’s idea is

I am going to write an essay on the retributivist approach and reductivist approach on punishment, comparing and contrasting both theories. To start off I will talk about the retributivism theory and the belief that an offender should be punished based upon the severity of the offense. I will them move onto just deserts which Is a modern retributivist theory which only focuses on crimes that have already committed making sure individuals get there just deserts for doing wrong. Next I will write about the reductivist theory which is all about trying to deter individuals from committing a crime or reoffending. Jeremy Bentham had a huge impact on reductivism believing if pain was to outweigh pleasure then it would deter individuals and overall nobody would have the desire to commit a crime as they are aware of the consequences they would have to face. Moving on to deterrence will talk about the two different types of deterrence; individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence focuses on stopping individuals from reoffending whereas general deterrence is about deterring individuals who have never even committed an offence from turning to crime. Once writing about both retributivism and reductivism I will start to compare and contrast both theories, looking at the similarities and differences. Finally I will give my own opinion on the theories and which theory I believe is best, talking about how retributivist and reductivist punishments are different and the good and

Consider the design of a puppet. When observing this structure, one will give attention to the source of the puppet’s actions being dictated by the puppeteer. These actions are able to be transmitted from the will of the puppeteer into the puppet through the strings that the puppeteer uses to control specific parts of the puppet. Furthermore, one can infer that the strings of the puppet are the motive behind the puppet’s action. If the puppet’s actions are disoriented or even disjointed, one can infer that the strings or the motives behind the puppet’s actions are conflicting. A notable literary example of this depiction can be found in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserablés. Late in Book V: Valjean, Jean Valjean describes the method of reasoning behind Javert’s suicide when he says, “To owe life to a criminal...to betray society in order to remain true...these absurdities should come about and be heaped on top of him...it was this that defeated him” (Hugo 1181). Javert’s adherence to his internal conflict imploded and eventually influenced his suicide; a reader might see Javert’s decision and confirm that an inner conflict of motives prompted his unanticipated action. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a 19th Century existentialist Russian author, portrays a similar theme in his book Crime and Punishment which tells the story of a man named Raskolnikov, the suspect of a murder case, who appears like a puppet with actions that become increasingly

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.

Utilitarians view punishment as a pathway lined with deterrence… one that ultimately leads criminals towards rehabilitation. This is a forward-looking approach, as it focuses on the future of criminal behavior (Hemmens et al., 2013). This perspective concentrates on two separate entities. Those being the person whom is punished, as well as the other members of society. If one were to ask a utilitarian, “Why Punish?” the response would likely be, “We must punish in order to promote good and prevent evil… in the future.” There is little focus on the crime that has already been committed or under what circumstances that it occurred. The concern is with what society should do next in order to prevent it from happening again. Utilitarians believe that if no good consequences result from punishment, then no punishment is justified. One could look at this philosophy of punishment as a doorway of opportunity for criminals, but also as a doorway of fear… one that keeps law-abiding citizens from

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

The five theories of punishment, therefore, tend to be associated with the laws ensuring justice. The Rational Choice Theory, or deterrence, is a Utilitarian approach that attempts to discourage others from committing a similar act. It focuses the mind on the consequences that will befall if they choose to follow the same course. This, however, is nonsensical to assume that criminal acts are results of rational behaviour, which future criminals can be dissuaded from by merely evoking fear. B. Hoose, a classical utilitarian, says do the act that produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Capital punishment therefore is justifiable because not only does it act as a deterrent but it also rids society of dangerous and undesirable citizens. Although even though capital punishment may have a good effect on one person, it would make a terrorist a martyr and therefore unfortunately encourage further crime. Retribution, another central theory of punishment, fits naturally with people’s feelings because it suggests that wrongdoers should have to pay for what they did. The principle of just deserts

Human beings are basically reasonable, and most of their behavior is the result of free will along with reasonable behavior. Two central determinants of human behavior is pain and pleasure. Crime belittles the quality of the bond that exists between individuals and society an evil form of behavior. Punishment, a necessary evil, is required to deter law violation and to serve as an example to others who would also violate the law. Root principles of right and wrong are inherent in the nature of things and cannot be denied. Society exists to provide benefits to individuals that they would not receive in isolation. When you have men and women band together for the protection offered by society, they forfeit some of the benefits that accrue from living in isolation. Certain key rights of individuals are inherent in the nature of things, and governments that contravene those rights should be disbanded(Schmalleger , 2012).

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

This assignment will provide an overview of the main justifications for punishment and essentially discuss the moral and political arguments for and against punishment. A constant theme that will run throughout will be the Utilitarian philosophy of punishment. Utilitarianism is forward looking and therefore seeks to prevent the reoccurrence of crime. This is generally achieved through Deterrence, Rehabilitation and Incapacitation with all to some extent playing a vital role in the criminal justice system.However the idea of doing whats good for the greatest number of people could be contested. For instance the debate of who has the moral right to punish or is punishment based on divine laws which is still apparent in contemporary society.

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.

Are there special human beings who are entitled to more rights and privileges than ordinary humans? Rodia’s theory in Dostoyevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, addresses this question. His desire to perform benevolent deeds for society converts him into a strong believer in his theory, influencing him to commit murder. Through Rodia’s experiment, the novel proves the theory false. Dostoevsky uses his characterization of Raskolnikov to express criticism of the popular theory, Utilitarianism.

There are many ways to reason through the correct course of action involving human punishment for crime. Crime is considered negative in society, a breach in the way one should behave. The problems arise when the time comes to punish a criminal. There are disagreements over the severity of a crime, the mentality of the criminal, and the correct penalty that should result from that crime among other things. Kant and the Utilitarian perspective on crime and punishment do not coincide. Both philosophical viewpoints seem convincing in their own right, but not without flaws. One is simply the better way to reason through the issue at hand as it relates to society as a whole.