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
- 1st 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