The Utilitarian Theory Of Punishment

Punishment is any kind of negative penalty inflicted on the wrong doer to prevent him from doing wrong in the future. Though there is no specific definition for punishment, it implies all those acts that are required to teach the wrong doer a lesson. Taking a negative step towards the offender. Since the evolution of time, there have been many sociologists who have given their theories on punishment and how the offender should be punished. The theories vary in terms of approach taken to deal with

Governments have several theories to support the use of punishment to maintain order in society. A theory of punishment used by government is utilitarianism. The utilitarian theory of punishment seeks to penalize offenders to discourage or deter future wrongdoing. Since the theory of utilitarianism revolves around the greater good of the whole society, it implies that laws should be used to maximize the happiness of society. Since crime and punishment are on the opposite end of the spectrum of happiness

The concept of punishment exists in many different forms, each with conflicting views on how to best approach an offence committed by individuals. Two theories stand at the forefront of punishment being that of the Utilitarian, and Retributive theories. Each theory presents its own idea on how punishment ought to be carried out and the core reasoning behind it. The two theories are also debated within our own Canadian legal system which is referred to as: The Criminal Code of Canada, where it details

The death penalty or Capital punishment is a controversial topic on its own. With the US being one of the states that allow capital punishment makes the topic even more personal. The utilitarian theory in the book is described as an action that would promote happiness or good consequences to "all concerned". With that simple definition, anyone can tell that someone who follows this theory would disagree completely with the idea of Capital punishment. In Chapter nine of the textbook the section "Utilitarianism

There is an ongoing problem in our society regarding punishment and responsibility. We, as a society, tend to look away when it comes to how criminals are being punished and maybe we should be paying more attention. Violence seems to be an integral part of our society, some raise their children with violence, we watch it on television, read it in newspapers and books and now we are even playing violent video games. When it comes to the judicial system the majority of citizens do not even know how

are many theories they can choose from to aid in defending their stance. Different theories can offer differing viewpoints on why someone should be punished after committing a crime. Two theories that stand out amongst others are the retributivist theory of punishment and the utilitarian theory of punishment. Though they both argue in favor of punishment, their reasoning in doing so differ I will be arguing, out of those two theories of punishment, that the retributivist theory of punishment should

immorally. A common response to immoral behavior is punishments, which leads me to ask the question: how is punishment justified? In his article “The Classic Debate”, American legal philosopher Joel Feinberg lays out the main points of discourse between the two major theories of justified punishment, which I will deconstruct. Feinberg asserts that there are two main theories used to justify punishment: Retributivism and Utilitarianism. These two theories supposedly oppose each other such that they are

being incapacitated is meant to be so unpleasant that it will discourage the offender from repeating their criminal behavior in order to avoid finding themselves in their current situation at a later time. Rehabilitation is another utilitarian rationale for punishment. The goal of rehabilitation is to prevent future crime by providing offenders with the resources and abilities to succeed within the confines of the law. Rehabilitative requirements for criminal offenders usually include treatment

(Cohen and Ahn, 2016). The utilitarian reasoning process is hypothesized to be logical and controlled. The individual weighs the features that go into determining objective utility in an unbiased manner. Such reasoning will lead to the objective utilitarian conclusion (Cohen and Ahn, 2016). Since this reasoning process requires the manipulation of information and is under cognitive control, it uses working memory and it often takes time (Cohen and Ahn, 2016). Cohen and Ahn (2016) argue that

crucial moral problems created by human existence, philosophers use ethical theories for their issues. A theory is an abstract statement formulated to predict, explain, or describe the relationships among concepts or events. In this semester I’ve had the opportunity to study some of them. I’ve read ethical relativism, egoism, utilitarianism, Kantian