Criminal Punishment

Avoi Rivera 3/7/13 Phil 108 – EthicsShort Paper #2 Criminal Abuse: Utility versus Retribution Section 10 – Topic #3 The practice of consequence is element of our world and capabilities to maintain sociable order. However , there are a few different perspective points in order to appropriately accomplish punishment.

Retribution and Utilitarianism are two philosophies that contain very different views on the theory of punishment. Philosopher Immanuel Kant asserts that Retribution is definitely the model pertaining to punishment.

Margen argues that punishment must be governed by simply two principles: 1 . persons should be penalized solely since they have dedicated a crime and 2 . consequence is to be in proportion to the seriousness of the offense (Rachels 142). For example , a tiny punishment fits a small criminal offenses and a far more serious punishment is suitable for an even more serious offense. Furthermore, Retribution means that a person committing a crime will probably be held responsible for his or her actions.

Kant’s moral theory states individuals, having the capacity to reason and make selections for themselves, should be held liable. If we avoid, then our company is treating them as if we were holding not rational, reasonable agents. Furthermore, approval of abuse comes from the size of the offense and does not consider if the consequences are good or perhaps bad, that the person pays off the fees for having determined the criminal offense. This perspective point is vastly distinct that the Utilitarian model of punishment (Bzdak PP). The Practical view point always looks at the consequences of punishment.

The foundation of Utilitarianism is that delight is the supreme goal and need to do no matter what we can to increase this. Consequence is incorrect (immoral) since it is, inherently, an unhappy circumstance. Yet , punishment can be moral if the good exceeds the bad. Consequence should cause good outcomes, it should ensure that the person being punished and so both culture and the criminal benefit. The principle of rehabilitation is at play here and the target is to carry out whatever is needed to make the legal a productive member of contemporary society.

The view of Retribution not simply differs with Utilitarianism for the view of consequences yet also man integrity or dignity. The Utilitarian justification of rehab is certainly not in line with Retribution. Retributivists might say that it can be disrespectful to humans to treat them like they were certainly not rational creatures and because of the, need to be rehabilitated. As stated prior to, there are only two guidelines governing abuse – having done the crime and receiving an appropriate treatment – disregarding other reasons just like consequences.

I think, I think that retribution much more appealing compared to the utilitarian view. The biggest factor that sways me to retribution may be the concern of those who don’t devote crimes. Retribution is only worried about those who dedicate crimes be held liable. Utilitarians can easily justify punishing an blameless person as it would advantage the greater joy of the world. References Rachels, S i9000., , Rachels, J. (2012). The aspects of moral beliefs (7th education. ). Ny: McGraw-Hill.

Tweet