Utilitarian Theory of Punishment in the Criminal Justice System

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

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.

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

Many individuals believe that the criminal system and its institutions are flawed. These critiques have been brought on by the ineffectiveness of prisons to reform individuals, the ineptness of the system to reduce crime rates, the lack of focus on victims of crimes, as well as the racist, classist and sexist practices existing in these institutions. Therefore, we can ask ourselves if the elimination of the current penal system and the implementation of alternatives would better allow

The penal system in the United States is often portrayed as being tough on crime, but to many other western nations the penal system in the United States is viewed as a broken system (Mallory, 2006). While this is a tough critique, the American incarceration rate is the highest in the world at over 714 per 100,000 U.S. citizens (Walmsley, 2008). This rate is much higher than many of other western European countries, whose average incarceration rate is only 95 per 100,000 citizens (Stern, 2002; Walmsley, 2008). America’s higher rate of incarceration might be more acceptable if it resulted in a safer society. Consequently, one could reasonably conclude that the United States’ political agenda for increasing punishment to decrease crime yields an ineffective result. Therefore, in the

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require strict punishment, as well as harsh sentencing without the benefit of rehabilitation. Two conflicting views are examined, they are from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory sentencing as well as ‘three strikes’ sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for repeat offenders even if they are non-violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who supports sentencing that is efficient and fair, objecting punishments that only attend retribution, especially since they do not contribute to the lessening of crime commission. Reviewed are two works, that of Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David

Due to the rapid increase in crime, much more attention has been drawn to the opinion that something must be done in the United States Criminal System. We as a country need to reevaluate the way we treat people and the way we convict them, of unspeakable acts of slaughter or even rape. Many people have a huge opinion on this situation, such as some people saying ‘’we need it’’ and others say ‘’the man pulling that switch is no better than the man sitting in the chair.’’ As a country we need to find better options than just prison.

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, or Results, Theory" explains the difference between utilitarian and retributive theory. In the retributivist theory consequences are determined by the severity of the crime. For example someone murders a person for no reason, they would receive a very long or life sentence, opposed to a trespasser might receive six months or a fine depending on the severity. Utilitarianism is not always against

Considering the three variations of consequentialist ethics, ethical egoism, contractualism, and utilitarianism: How does these three areas of ethics effect achieving positive means and ends in the criminal justice system?

What a great discussion post. According to Utilitarianism the good of the majority is more important and for sure the boy should have a harsher punishment. Even though the Affluenza issue came up later, the good (joy) of the affected (families and injured) is more important. Since the parents of the young men already knew of this sickness, they should have taken care of the boy limiting him from driving and some stewardships. I do not think the state should have paid his rehabilitation once his parents were wealthy and already knew about his sickness. Of course, the punishment of the young boy would bring relief to the affected families; thus, the boy should be punished, according to utilitarianism, because it would relief the pain of the families.

Utilitarianism theory is an ethical theory that focuses on the outcomes of actions to determine right and wrong. The death penalty goes against it and it could be impractical because we are individuals and cannot be lumped together to explain an idea. We are all different, and one cannot get total Utilitarianism to explain ideas and actions of people. With the theory, the death penalty would be justifiable because it is the best action to action to take with someone kills another. The theory holds that the death penalty is what maximizes justice and the actions of the State. In other words, the theory holds that the death penalty is the "best moral action".

“Americans have always had ambivalent feelings about crime and punishment” (71). Many say our American System of Justice is broken, for they believe the system is looking to just punish those who have done wrong and is not looking to rehabilitate them, especially for juveniles. Then there are some who say, the American System of Justice does not need to change for it already punishes criminals with due process, and rehabilitates them. The American System of Justice should change the way they punish criminals, because those who are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes are taking up space in our prison system, juveniles are being put in solitary confinement and coming out more damaged than they were, and lastly some offenders are serving to long for the crime they committed.

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 numerous reasons that individuals commit crime. Criminologists use criminological theories in an attempt to understand why individuals commit crime. The goal is to eventually find a way to minimize deviant behavior, if not prevent it altogether. A criminological theory attempts to explain the relationship between crime and other phenomena. Around the world, many criminal justice systems attempt to deter criminal behavior by utilizing legal sanctions such as fines, community service, or incarceration. The use of legal punishment as a deterrent to criminal activity is grounded in the utilitarian idea that the greatest good is achieved by taking whatever action is the most beneficial for the majority of the population. Even though punitive action can be considered harmful to the individual, it benefits the population as a whole if there are penalties for behavior that is detrimental to society. Rational choice theory, and the concept of deliberate choice based on an analysis of risk versus reward, is the foundation for the objective of deterrence.

Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on an offender for a violation they caused such as a crime they did. Since punishment involves inflicting a pain or suffering to a criminal similar to an offender inflicts pain on his victim, it has generally been agreed that punishment requires moral justification. Utilitarianism determines good from bad in a policy by the amount of pleasure or happiness it promotes. It focuses on happiness as the ultimate standard and ends to any ethical decision. Utilitarian’s attempt to make punishment moral in terms of the overall balance of good over evil produced. With utilitarianism, punishment is justified only to an extent as it promotes the overall happiness.