Consequentialism Vs Retributivism

In the philosophical argument on punishment, moral theories aim to articulate how offenders should be punished for their actions, and on what basis these punishments find justification. Two prominent models of this type are retributivism and consequentialism, which take dramatically different routes in the defense or disparagement of certain punishment theory topics. Retributivism, or retributive theory, centers on a view of society that creates laws citizens must abide by, and ascertains that violators of the law deserve to be disadvantaged due to the unfair advantage they took of others. So, when evaluating the punishment to be inflicted, the retributivist society looks into the past at the nature of the violation—called the backward-looking

Critics of retributivism primarily claim that the most widely adhered principle used to evaluate the “fitting” nature of the punishment, lex talionis, creates an irrevocably flawed system of punishment. Lex talionis, they say, is an impractical and inadequate source of justice, because a society cannot be expected to impose the same action onto specific offenders like rapists, embezzlers, traitors, and war criminals. Also, if an offender is guilty of an action against a person, and the result is the death of the person’s son, lex talionis dictates that the offender’s innocent son would be put to death, which is arguably unjust. Critics contend consequentialism with the argument of excessive punishment for minor violations. Because a consequentialist society’s goal in punishment is deterrence, it may often sacrifice maintaining proportional justice to make an example out of an offender. This tactic is deemed successful by consequentialists but extremely ambiguous, as it disregards the fairness due to the offender in exchange for the greater good. This can be referred to treating people as “means to an end,” which critics regard as morally