Abstract
This essay is about how to best justify punishment. I will explain and review a few different theories on punishment and then evaluate them, revealing which I think is the best (or most morally justified). Consequentialist punishments usually issue a great benefit to the majority of people involved, because of its potential to develop society. However consequentialist punishments, such as deterrence, are sometimes too harsh on the offender and is therefore sometimes unfair. Despite the issues with consequentialism, I still believe it is the best method to justify punishment. However, some more theories regarding punishment will also be discussed. I will consider the victim, offender, society as a whole, and the offense committed when presenting my ideas.
Introduction
There are 2 main theories used to decide whether actions are morally right or morally wrong - consequentialism and deontology. These concepts can convey reasons for whether a crime can be considered wrong, or right. Both theories justify a person`s actions, or punishment, taking into account, the crime being committed. When justifying punishment, we can reflect on which method of punishment is more effective and morally acceptable for the community, individual, or society.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
One of the theories is Consequentialism. As the name suggests, it is the belief that the consequences of one`s behavior are the basis for judgment on the rightness or wrongness of that behavior (page 9 of the handbook). Consequentialists believe that whether an action is right or wrong depends on the results the act produces, the better the results of the act, the better the act is. Examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism (BBC bitesize). John Stuart Mill who agrees with this theory declared that 'Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (wikia.org). This theory is linked with moral hedonism, it argues that acts are only morally justified when they result in pleasure as a substitute for pain. To put this into perspective, a consequentialist would say that killing 1 person is more justified than killing 2 (or more) people since it would result in just 1 person dying in place of 2 (or more) people dying (wikia.org). Many people will believe that both scenarios are morally wrong, despite this a consequentialist would argue that the action which has the least negative effects would be more acceptable.
One of the consequentialist theories on punishment is deterrence. Deterrence proposes that punishment is granted to halt wrongdoing. The key figure of the deterrence theory is fear. It aims to hinder wrongdoings by creating fear, the objective is to set an illustration for the society or community by punishing the criminal (law times journal). Deterrence is the thought that society may diminish its wrongdoing rates as a result of being frightened and cautioned, it is a method of punishment that considers the effect of crime on the community. This joins to consequentialism because it is a strategy used to avoid individuals from committing wrongdoings by educating them on the result of their actions.
The theory focuses on persuading people to not commit crimes so that they don`t end up like the wrongdoer being punished. The concept of a brief sharp shock is an advantage of deterrence; using a disproportionate penalty could discourage society from potentially offending. There's also the utilitarian claim put forward by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, which states that one person's suffering may prevent the suffering of many others, or that one person's pleasure may bring pleasure to many others.
However, there is an argument on disproportionality, that the penalty should be proportional to the crime; deterrence is more extreme. As a result, a harsh sentence may cause offenders to get angry making them likely to re-offend. There are also ethical concerns about using people (in this case prisoners) to deliver a message to society.
On the other hand, Deontology is the belief that the morality of an action ought to be founded on whether that activity itself is correct or wrong under a progression of rules, instead of dependent on the outcomes of the action (page 9 of the handbook). Immanuel Kant was the first great philosopher to describe deontological concepts. Kant believed that nothing is good without qualification, except goodwill. He argued that good will is one that chooses to behave in accordance with the moral law and out of respect for the moral law and not out of natural desire. An example of deontology would be categoric imperative. It states that: you (society) should act only according to the rules and then it will become a general rule (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 1785). The categorical imperative commands that one should act only on universal principles, principles that could be followed by all rational people, since rules are, more or less, principles of influence (new encyclopedia). Morality, according to Kant, is founded on our sound judgment. Therefore, if we believe an act is right, we ought to desire it to become a law for all of society to follow. Deontology advocates the principle that we should not behave in any manner that we might deem wrong for someone else in similar circumstances; rather than our assumptions on whether the implications of an act are good or negative, our behavior should reflect and embody our moral rules and standards.
Retribution is one of the key goals of deontology, which is to justify punishment. The goal is for wrongdoers to suffer in an exact proportion to how they treated their victim; punishment here balances any benefits that criminals receive after committing a crime (page 17 of the handbook). In a moral sense, it is good if a person receives the punishment, he or she deserves. However, inflicting a more severe penalty on someone than would be appropriate for the crime is immoral. The concept of retribution is that a person's punishment should be strictly proportional to the offense he committed.
For example, a person who stole money would face punishment in the form of restitution, while a person who committed murder would face either the death penalty or life in jail. Either alternative results in the loss of life. This type of punishment is referred to as deontological since it focuses on the person who has committed the immoral act rather than considering the societal repercussions and long-term solutions to the crime issue. For those affected by the crime, such as the victim and their families, retribution provides a more intimate form of justice.
Consequentialism and deontology both have different ways of justifying punishment. Deontological methods, such as retribution, serve to provide immediate justice for the victim, and consequentialist methods, such as social incapacitation, support society by protecting them and reducing crime overall; this is accomplished by criminal rehabilitation methods. The question of whether consequentialist or deontological principles are more successful in achieving the goals of punishment, and which method is more morally justified, is a popular debate that emerges as a result of these two opposing theories.
Discussion
A few forms of punishment include deterrence, rehabilitation, restoration, retribution, incapacitation, and societal protection. We must examine which type of punishment is the most effective in obtaining the desired results. For instance, one of the primary goals of punishment is to create justice, and many people believe that retribution is the only way to achieve justice because it delivers direct justice for the victim and people who were harmed by a crime.
In addition, some people believe that natural law is the permanent source of our beliefs, according to Thomas Aquinas (the founder of the natural law doctrine), Our morals are embedded in our minds, and they are established by nature, God, or a 'spiritual source.'
The instinct of self-defense and the emotion of sympathy is a naturalistic explanation for why humans desire justice and retribution. It is natural for us to resent those who have wronged us and to seek revenge against those who have wronged others with whom we sympathize with (J.S. Mill). Another motive for retributive punishment is the pleasure of authority over another human being, as well as their suffering. The desire for safety pushes society to accept punishment and create a compromise between lawful and unlawful behaviors, thus establishing influence over society.
Although the deontological view of punishment gives a direct and personal type of justice, it ignores society's overall gain. Retribution is based on the notion of 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' (Lex Talionis), which states that people get what they deserve. This equality concept is supported by Immanuel Kant, who says, 'the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to one side than the other.' To balance the scales, it is thought necessary to impose punishment on an offender based on what they 'deserve' after a crime has been committed. Many people would wonder what exactly an offender deserves in this situation. Some people believe in the 'eye for an eye' theory, which argues that criminals should be treated in the same manner as the victim. The concept, according to JS Mill, molds society's perception of justice, and it is natural to want to punish those who harm others (page 30 of the handbook).
For example, a guy and a woman are both accused of murdering someone (separately), but their motives are different. The woman killed them for pleasure, while the man killed them because his own child was being held captive. Considering this, each person's penalty would be determined by the judge's values rather than the law. To excuse the man's murder of a person, the judge would have to believe that the life of the child is more significant than the life of the person who died.
Is justice served if the judge decides to sentence this particular man to death? The victim's relatives and friends may experience a sense of justice and equality as the culprit is punished, but this feeling is only brief. Therefore, retribution is being used as a kind of revenge for the victim's close relatives. Apart from the momentary spiteful delight, nothing else positive occurs, signaling that crime rates have not decreased and that punishment has only benefited a few people directly. This, in my opinion, renders this sort of punishment immoral because it does not reflect high moral values. For instance, forgiveness, which is encouraged by many faiths and religions around the world, is absolutely disregarded during this type of punishment.
As a result, retribution contradicts the concept of seeking justice rather than mere satisfaction. Personally, I believe that the major goal of punishment is to reduce crime rates, which is why I believe in consequentialist punishments because its primary goal is to discourage others from committing crimes. Retribution does not do this and is, therefore, in my opinion, not the most effective method of punishment.
Nonetheless, there are some advantages to retribution. For example, victims of crime may frequently feel as though they have lost control of their lives. They can reclaim their power with Retribution. Communicating with the criminal restores the victim's sense of self-worth. Furthermore, retribution might provide an opportunity for offenders to try to right some of their wrongs. If the crime was robbery, for example, the criminal may be allowed to assist the victim in recovering their belongings.
On the other hand, there are numerous consequentialist penalties that will ensure and strive for lower crime rates. Deterrence, for example, is a repercussion of punishment that keeps others from committing crimes and criminals from reoffending. After society is cautioned about the potential consequences of committing immoral acts, crime rates drop. This theory was supported by philosopher Paul Ree, who claimed that penalties were used not to punish misbehavior, but to prevent it from happening again in the future. Without deterrence, society would descend into chaos, with 'each person snatching out as much property of others as might be taken by force, without regard for their happiness or even life.' As a result, deterrence permits society to preserve a sense of security, justice, and peace. Also, crime rates would not be lowered if people were unaware of the consequences of their activities after they were caught, because they would believe their actions were justified.
Incapacitation and societal protection are two further ways that consequentialism reduces crime. This type of punishment involves focusing on protecting society from a dangerous offender. Incapacitation restricts a criminal from having the freedom that they may usually have in society.
By incapacitating an offender, we are preventing the individual from committing further offenses since they are removed from society and locked or restrained somewhere (study.com). Examples of incapacitation include prison sentences, the death penalty, and house arrest. Prison sentences and house arrest divide and separate a criminal from society in order to safeguard the community ultimately removing the possibility of a criminal harming others. The death penalty does a similar thing as prison sentences, and house arrests but instead, it eliminates the possibility of the individual committing further crimes.
Stanton E., perceives prisons to be 'schools for crime' or 'breeding grounds for crime.' 'The fundamental principle is that locking up offenders makes them worse by teaching them new 'tricks of the trade,'' he said.
This is because the criminals will be in the company of other criminals, causing them to become 'even more unethical or dangerous.' However, because of the present rehabilitation and restoration support systems offered in jails, I disagree.
Even though rehabilitation and restoration don`t particularly center on society, it does consider the support a criminal needs to decrease the chance of them committing a crime again. Its goal is to teach offenders how to distinguish between good and wrong. Because they have been separated from their initial goals, criminals adapt and become better individuals by adjusting their original perspective. As a result, societal protection is maintained while offenders adapt and consequently set an example for the rest of society to follow. This essentially reduces crime rates and conjointly helps people get the individual help they require to change and improve their conduct or state of mind (page 17 of the handbook).
The benefits of consequentialist punishment can be seen in its potential to improve not only society but also the offender's morality. These punishments effectively reduce crime while
Some argue that rather than relying solely on consequentialism or retribution, we should combine the two principles to arrive at a morally acceptable punishment. Motive is an important aspect of crime, in my opinion, because it affects whether or not a person will commit an illegal act. The offender's mental state and background, especially their current life situation, must also be taken into account because it has a substantial impact on their actions.
As a result, I believe that people should be punished based on their intentions and reasons for acting the way they did. A compromise of both theories would enable people to identify the truth and reality of crime, as well as provide a more realistic explanation of why someone would commit such acts. However, because it is based solely on judgment, it may be unbalanced to compromise both theories as there are no specific rules or guidelines in order to determine the appropriate punishment for criminals. This may be unfair to some people because the degree of sympathy they receive while determining their punishment varies depending on the judge and their personal beliefs or morals.
The benefits of consequentialist punishment can be seen in its potential to improve not only society but also the offender's morality. These punishments effectively reduce crime while also protecting society, which justifies their moral use.
Consequentialist punishment (deterrence), unlike deontological punishment (retribution), to me, is more ethically acceptable since it allows the consequences of one's wrongdoings to be enforced only for the benefit of the majority, not the minority. Whereas retribution provides a brief sense of satisfaction to a limited number of those desiring revenge or equality, consequentialist approaches provide greater overall benefits.
Furthermore, consequentialist penalties are delivered with good intentions and for the greater good. The idea considers the best interests of society and distributes punishment in a way that benefits the majority. One person is worth sacrificing for twenty others in the eyes of a consequentialist; I agree with this viewpoint since it is rational to value the lives of the majority because there is a higher level of overall satisfaction. Even though the punishment is not proportional, it nonetheless has moral consequences through immoral behaviors.
I believe retribution fails to meet these standards and produces ineffective or immoral outcomes. Temporary pleasure, which is a component of retribution, does not reflect moral principles and teaches the opposite of how we must act and behave toward others.
Conclusion
To summarise, I believe that consequentialist techniques of punishment have purposes that generate better results and benefit society as a whole. They assist offenders by allowing them to grow and alter their ideas in order to become better people. In essence, this reduces crime, which benefits society and protects the community from re-offending and other forms of criminal activity. Furthermore, consequentialist punishments are morally justifiable because their goals are for the greater good. This is beneficial to society because it promotes values such as forgiveness, peace, and tolerance. Retribution, on the other hand, achieves nothing other than an initial satisfaction of fairness; however, crime is not lessened. In my opinion, retribution does not promote moral principles because it prevents peace, forgiveness, or development from occurring. I also believe that compromising penalties is less effective than consequentialist penalties since it does not follow any rules, making them unfair or unjust to some people. Ultimately, I believe consequentialist punishments are the best method because of the outcomes and pure intentions behind it which are essentially carried out for the greater good.
Stuck on your essay?
