Rachels, Ch 10
Utilitarianism and Kantianism ("Retributivism") on Punishment

• Questions:
• Why ought we to punish people?
• What are the reasons/justifications for punishment?
  
• Utilitarianism on punishment in itself
• In itself, an evil (intrinsically evil)
• Although its consequences can be good
• Why do utilitarians think punishment-considered in itself-apart from further consequences is an evil?
• Because it causes unhappiness/suffering
• Retributivism sees punishment in-itself as good
• It is intrinsically good
• Even if nothing else good comes from it
• Kant's idea to execute the last murderer in jail even if the world was going to end.
• Why is punishment intrinsically good (for retributivism)?
• Treats people as they deserve to be treated
• Justice requires it
• "An eye for an eye" is an example of this attitude
• Treats people with respect as autonomous agents, whose choices determine how others treat them
  
• Utilitarianism rejects retributivism
• Retributivism increases, not decreases amount of suffering in the world
• Advocating an increase rather than a decrease in suffering without any compensating gains.
  
• Utilitarian justification for "punishment"
• Only if the good results outweigh the evil involved
• Does it have good results? (Does it stop more suffering than it inflicts)
• Prevent crime:
• Deterrence: Is it a deterrent? E.g., does the death penalty scare away potential murders?
• Does punishment successfully isolate criminals so they can not cause more suffering.
• Rehabilitate wrongdoer: Make him/her a productive happy member of society
  • In his respect, utilitarian abandons "punishment" in favor of treatment
  • "Correctional facilities" (not punishment facilities)
• These two utilitarian goals of punishment (deterrence and correction) are in some tension
  
• Retributivism's objections to utilitarian view of punishment
• Fails to respect persons and undermines human dignity
• Using people as a means to an end (prevent crime)
• Rehabilitation manipulates these people's personalities and molds them into what society wants them to be
• This violates rights of autonomous persons
  
• Two principles of retributive punishment
• One: People should be punished because and only because they have committed a crime
• Two: Punishment should be proportional (not = identical) to the gravity of the offense
• Scales of justice need to be brought back into balance
• Kant's view of capital punishment
  
• Utilitarianism violates both of these principles of retributive justice
• One: No limit of punishment to the guilty
• Punishment can deter even if the person punished did not commit the crime:
• Consider drunk driving checks, or
• Police randomly stopping people in a crime ridden neighborhood
• Two: Nothing limits punishment to the amount deserved (could be more or less harsh, depending on what brings the best results)
• Ten years in jail for possession of marijuana may effectively deter
• A nice "correctional facility" may be best at rehabilitation
  
• Retributivism's arguments for punishment
• Punishment treats people as ends in themselves
• Shows respect for people by treating them as they deserve to be treated
• Respect them as rational and free beings; respect their choices; hold them responsible for their choices (they are not children or mentally unfit)-praise and blame them, reward and punish them.
  
• By allowing people's conduct to determine how we respond to them, we respect their free choices and give them control over their lives
  • If they want to be treated well, then they should treat others well
  • If they treat others poorly, then this is how we shall treat them
    
• 1^st version of the categorical imperative: Universalize our acts
• Do back to the person what she has done to others
• Treat him as he has decided people ought to be treated
• We comply with the criminal's own choices and wishes when we punish him for his evil deeds
• We respect his judgment
• He brought the evil deed onto himself