Consequentialism And Retribution Theories Essay

One of the oldest justifications for punishment involves the principles of retribution. Retribution (1900-1905) refers to an idea that offenders should be punished for committing a crime, but would not punish someone who was forced to commit a cri-me, i.e. duress. It can be sometimes be viewed as a

Byrd restates her thesis that the threat of punishment is meant to deter an individual from committing a crime. In society the threat of punishment is the coercion used to guard and prevent any unjust interferences with individual freedom. When moving from a state of nature to a civil society one gives up the ability to coerce another in exchange for guaranteed security. Meaning that in a state of nature one has the right to force coerce from another as long as it does not obstruct the other’s right to freedom, however in civil society one sacrifices that freedom to have guaranteed security. The civil society provides security through punishment. The society must punish to maintain security and the punishment that it provides must correspond to the security of future victims. Byrd argues that Kant’s theory does not solidify society’s right to punish in a retributive way but rather it solidifies society’s right to deter crime. If threatening of punishment is suppose to act as deterrence to persuade an individual from breaking a law, nonetheless it is not in situations where the individual is negligent because the individual had no intent to cause harm. Kant believes punishment should be equal to the hindrance of freedom that is represented by the crime. That can be described as retributive for the reason that the punishment is equal to the hindrance of freedom. Kant also believes that if the punishment is less than

As per its author of Alienation, Consequentialism, and Society, Railton’s opinion of what a sophisticated consequentialist is:

We learn about Kant’s views on punishment and the Categorical Imperative. Kant is retributivist. He believes that justice is the only logical punishment. Kant writes, “If legislation makes an action a duty and at the same time make this duty the incentive is juridical.” (Kant, page 544) He believes in punishing people because they did something wrong and denied the moral law. He believes that if you do something wrong and you know it is wrong, you deserve to be punished. The Categorical Imperative states that you cannot use a person as a means to an end. It also teaches that you should act in such a way that what your doing is a universal law for everyone else to follow. We should act in such a way that everyone in this world affirms these fundamental truths and beliefs. In my opinion, I do not agree with Kant’s retributivist attitude. Rather, I feel as though I agree with Hauerwas’ opinion.

The United States of America has had some pretty high crime rates over the last couple of decades. In 2016, The United States was ranked fifty-third out of the one hundred and twenty-five countries with the most crime. The violent and property crimes have gone up dramatically in the last few years. The U.S. should change the way they enforce laws after they are broken. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world because of the way they react after a crime has been committed. If the punishment of crime is increased, crime rates will go down. The United States should increase the lawful punishment to lower crime rates and make the country a safer and healthier place.

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

The concept of morality and moral “rules and laws” has as its corollary, the concept of “rule-breaking” or acting 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 mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (Feinberg). The latter of these theories, Utilitarianism, is the main concern of this

Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories stating that the consequences of one’s actions are the superior judge as far as to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The doctrine of Utilitarianism falls under the umbrella of consequentialism and suggests that actions are right if they are deemed as useful or are for the benefit of the majority. Alongside that, Utilitarians argue that everyone counts and everyone counts equally. This imposes that each being, belonging to the moral community, is owed a certain amount of respect and acknowledgment of needs. As far as who “everyone” truly is and who belongs in the moral community, Utilitarians believe that all beings that can suffer deserve a home in the moral community. Therefore humans and non-human animals, who are both susceptible to suffering, are morally equal.

For example, Kant states, “If he has committed a murder he must die. Here there is no substitute that will satisfy justice. . . Accordingly, every murderer – anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice to it – must suffer death; this is what justice wills in accordance with universal laws that are grounded a priori. . . This fitting of punishment to the crime is shown by the fact that only by this is a sentence of death pronounced on every criminal in proportion to his ‘inner wickedness’ (even when the crime is not murder but another crime against the state that can be paid for only by death)” (Kant, 1996). Here we see that Kant strongly believes in retribution (revenge). He believes that equality is established when legal punishment responds to guilt. He also strongly believes in the death penalty as a form of punishment and justice and believes it is the only proportional punishment to murderers and those who have wickedness inside of them. Kant (1996 b) believes that “in every punishment, there must first be justice”. Therefore he believes that all punishment (including the death penalty) is a way of giving justice, and a failure to punish, would be societies failure of giving justice. Not everyone has the right to give justice. Punishment must be given by someone in authority (either a single person or a group) and is either carried out under a system of law or in other social settings (such as within a family). Kant

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

The four justifications for punishment include, “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). Retribution is when a person receives a punishment as a result for committing a crime (Reichel, 2013). This form of punishment is deemed necessary by society because a person deserves to pay for breaking the law (Reichel, 2013). “A goal of retribution is to retaliate for the wrong done in such a way that the nature of the punishment reflects the nature of the offense” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). That is why there are different sentences for different crimes because each deserves a certain punishment (Reichel, 2013). For example, a person who commits murder isn’t going to receive the same punishment as a person

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

We have learned about different kinds of theories, consequentialist and non-consequentialist we are going to see if these theories are accountable for its principles in terms of the standard ethical principles such as truth telling, generosity, misconduct, keeping promises, not offending people, etc. To me not all these theories are not 100% perfect and does not fully account for its principles.

He does not consider incapacitation or rehabilitation as other consequentialist theorists have such as Goldman.[30]

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the