Utilitarian Vs Retributivism

The death penalty was also used as a mean to deteriorate the rise of murders. A way to scare people from committing the act. This of course is not the case(Depauw). Marshall and Bedau saw the death penalty and retributivism through a similar microscope. Marshall who was against the thought of the death penalty as retribution stated in his dissenting opinion of the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) case: “ The notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the sanction of death... I find to be the most disturbing aspect of today's unfortunate decisions…”(ProCon). According to Marshall retribution was a form of revenge which is low as it can get in his opinion. To allow the death penalty to him was to allow revenge to occur and not the laws of the land to prevail. Thurgood Marshall wanted justice to be served in reactions to crime, not revenge or allowing the emotions which was in high demand to conquer the court system. This is what he suggests about the theory of retribution. This in itself is also a form of utilitarian because in order to please others they will give the murderer the death penalty. Utilitarianism is to maximize utility or to maximize happiness. In order to fulfill this, to maximise happiness, it would be at the expense of the convicted.

One way utilitarianism will approach the death penalty in the movie Dead Men Walking is by questioning if it would benefit the greatest number. The death penalty would benefit the greatest number because the people would feel safer if Matthew Poncelet would not be able to harm anyone else in society. Moreover, the death penalty serves as general deterrence for society because they would learn from Matthew’s criminal actions and it serves as an example not to commit heinous crimes. When it comes to the movie Return to Paradise, utilitarianism analyzes the acceptance of culpability for the greatest number. When both Sheriff and Tony return back to Malaysia they are accepting culpability for the illegal substance the police found at the house.

Brandt also discusses how utilitarian’s believe that reform needs to take place in the criminal justice system. What is being proposed begins with reforming the juvenile court system with more psychiatric treatment and programs to assist with crime prevention as well as asking for more social awareness to help these programs. This reform would then be extended to the adult population. After a guilty verdict is rendered, the experts would complete an evaluation and decisions would be made regarding treatment for each individual and a timeline created to establish when such individual could be reintegrated back into society. This type of sentence may not follow utilitarian views but there views regarding

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

The utilitarian theory would view the death penalty as moral because they look at what would make most the people happy. Utilitarianism was founded by John Stuart Mills and Jeremy Bentham. By killing the person who took another person’s live, the victim’s family would be pleased that justice was served, and the rest of society would be happy knowing that the murderer would never be able to escape and harm them. This theory does allow life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty, since the murderer is still being punished and society’s happiness would

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

This concept is utilized in all of the diverse levels of the criminal justice system in which it prospers in both courtrooms and policing as well as the essential participants involved. When a particular person or a group of people such as a jury in a courtroom or an individual police officer exercises this decision making concept, he or she tends to observe the act with little consideration rather than the outcome and how it can impact society. If a rapist were being tried in a courtroom with a utilitarian jury and the jury had to make a decision on the punishment, more than likely the punishment would be severe because the jury would feel that if they were to let the convicted actor go, he or she might commit the crime once more. But if the

Premise 4: We have no right to risk (endanger) lives of the innocent people.Utiliarianists believe that prisoners could escape. Thus the death penalty is the only truly effective way ofachieving societal protection against the continuing threat posed by some convicted murderers. No matterWHAT the crime, WE as Americans have no right to kill another human being. We are not an eye for aneye country.Conclusion: Therefore, it is our moral obligation to retain (keep) the death penalty.Utilitarianists would say the fundamental justification for retaining the death penalty, lies in the fact thatthe death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent. The death penalty costs multitudes more than what itcosts to keep someone in prison. If we were to work on strengthening our prisons security rather thankilling these convicts we wouldn’t have to worry about escape, the safety of guards, or killing potentiallyinnocent

Crime and Economics has been an eminent area of research for a very long time. It has been noted a sharp increase in the application of economic approaches to the study of criminal justice system. Various economists have tried to analyze the behavior behind crime and punishment. Among several bodies of research, one of the most eminent is Gary S Becker’s ‘Crime and Punishment : An Economic Approach’.

This essay will consider what legal punishment is; it will draw a distinction between the two main categories.[3] It will focus on utilitarianism

Punishment in general can obviously be justified (in the traditional sense of the term) on utilitarian grounds. Nevertheless, usually its justification is not asked for. Because justification of punishment, in general is unnecessary. It is the justification of particular infliction of pain (or punishment) that can be enquired of. As a man can legitimately ask for justification of a particular law of a state. However, nobody enquires of the justification of legal system or of law in general. It is meaningful to ask, 'Can this rule be justified? 'Or 'Are not those laws justifiable? ' But it is not worthwhile rather it is absurd to ask, "Can law (in general) be justified?" Similarly, punishment in general or penal system requires no

It is through this that philosophers, government and prison officials have arrived at the five traditional goals of punishment which replicates elements of criminal punishment. They are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration and incapacitation. Retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence are however the three most frequently used in today’s modern society, as they are the main justifications for punishment.

Allowing people who have committed mass murder to live in prison is not just. It does not seem correct to force the families who have lost loved ones to the murderer, pay for his stay in prison. Although, if the murderers are sentenced to death, it will give some a sense of security, knowing the government is protecting the citizens. Martin Perlmutter has a good article on capital punishment and explains the utilitarian view. Perlmutter argues that although the utilitarian view is not perfect, since it focuses on the future without looking at the past, it does contain some valid points. The focus will be on how Utilitarians believes punishment should be based, which is on the future. Capital punishment usually creates positive outcomes for the future. The following paragraph will cover deterrence in depth, but Utilitarianism believes this is when capital punishment is beneficial to the society. If capital punishment did not have any benefits over a life sentence to prison, Utilitarianism would not support it. Criticism of Utilitarianism is made by Perlmutter here, and it is agreeable to look back as well as forward. Citizens need to understand what and why the criminal committed in the past. Perlmutter believes our moral concepts look backwards, explaining why focusing on the future is harmful.

To begin with, it is necessary to say that punishment is an integral part of modern countries’ legal systems, because countries have a duty to protect society from wrongdoers and authorities could reach success in it by punishing offenders. Oxford English Dictionary defines punishment as the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. There are four main purposes of punishment – incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation – and the aim of this paper is to