Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
from a view that is much more focused on the overall benefit to society. By
rehabilitating the criminal so that they can go back into society and be
productive and law abiding, society is being greatly benefited. The primary
benefits of utilitarianism is that it allows the criminal justice system not only
to deal with criminals, but to bring them back into society better than they
were before they entered their punishments.
Classical retributivism is a much different side of the coin than rule
utilitarianism. Retributivism looks at punishment in the classical sense of
justice: purely for the sake of justice itself. In Edmund Pincoffs article, he
makes an excellent case for this very idea as derived from Kant. Human
dignity is very important in and of itself. It is argued, therefore that just as it
is important to give good fortune to those who have earned it, that it is also
just as important to punish those who have earned it. Pincoff arrives to three
principles for retributivist justice, which is a good parallel to the three
justifications offered for rule utilitarianism. These rules, as stated by Pincoff,
say the following:
1. Punishment is only justified when a crime is committed
2. The punishment must be equal to severity of that which crime
has been committed
3. The criminal should only be punished to the extent that he
deserves
These rules are very to the point. Summed up, then, retributivism is the
belief that a criminal should be punished not to deter others, but because he
has deserved it. Kant says the reason this is justifiable is that the criminal is
taught a lesson buy showing him that the maxim he acted upon, when made
universal, is undesirable, i.e. a contradiction of wills. This, in turn, should
teach the criminal the error of his/her ways. The other upside to this theory is
that there is no over or under punishment for a crime; one will not receive a
harsher punishment purely to stop others from pursuing in the same act.
Lastly, there can be a better choice between retributivism and
utilitarianism which makes a case for a proper justice system. Retributivism
is an excellent contender for an ideologically sound justice system. There are
several reasons that this point can be reached. The first of which is looking at
the justification for the punishment. The justifications for utilitarianism can
often times come across as vague, and lead to an over punishment of the
offender. To encourage over punishment of one individual to prevent others
from acting the same is a very hard argument to make from a moral
standpoint. Imagine, for a second, if this logic were to be applied to other
facets of society: Shall we require every fifth student to take a harder test to
encourage other students to study better? Shall we make every tenth person
work two jobs, therefore encouraging those with only one to work harder?
Should one be fired from his job every time he makes a mistake in order to
discourage other employees from messing up? All of these examples use
very similar logic as the first argument, but when presented in this light they
begin to sound rather silly and unfair. The same can be applied to the
justification of deterrence; it is unfair to punish a criminal simply to send a
message to others. It is not the criminals burden to stop others in society
from acting the same way as he. The second thing to look at is prevention