Overall, in this paper, I will explain my disagreement with Kant’s doctrine on punishment due to the fact that I believe some forms of Kant’s punishment, are a violation of humanity. In the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, Kant explains and believes that punishment must always correspond and is proportional to the crime. Kant defines crime as “a transgression of public law that makes someone who commits it unfit to be a citizen” (Kant 1996). In society, if a crime is committed, one is usually punished. Kant believes that the guilty deserve punishment and that punishment should be proportional to the guilt.
Capital Punishment Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison. The most famous retributivist Kant, states that the guilty ought to get punished because they chose to act wrongly, and by punishing them, we are respecting them as a moral agents. This occurs because humans are given the ability to reason and act morally and thus if we don’t punish them we are not treating them as moral agents.
As the purpose of restorative justice is to mend the very relationship between the victim, offender, and society, communities that embrace restorative justice foster an awareness on how the act has harmed others. Braithwaite (1989) notes that by rejecting only the criminal act and not the offender, restorative justice allows for a closer empathetic relationship between the offender, victims, and community. By acknowledging the intrinsic worth of the offender and their ability to contribute back to the community, restorative justice shows how all individuals are capable of being useful despite criminal acts previous. This encourages offenders to safely reintegrate into society, as they are encouraged to rejoin and find rapport with the community through their emotions and
The person should have a punished that is equally cruel as the crime that has been committed. People do not agree that the punishment that the offender is receiving will bring back the dead or even ease the pain of their loved ones feel. For the sake of please society’s need for revenge, payback is justified by the punishing of the criminal that causes the criminal to suffer to the same level that their victims did. Statistics show that capital punishment does deter crime. Though, the retribution will never take the brutal behavior of the offender, it does serve for pleasing society’s need for restoring moral order, as retaliation would be required if punishment was not executed.
It is morally right as the when the person is convicted, they must get the punishment. It is opinion of the public to the bad guy without concerning with the outcome of the punishment. This theory also is regarded as the offenders deserve to get the punishment not as to prevent from future wrongdoing . This theory also as the metaphorical to scared the society for not doing the same offense. Richard Swinbume, in his recommendation of retributive punishment, indicated that the state only has authority to impose punishment for criminal harm where it serves as a proxy for the individual harmed.'
Capital punishment is used to bring justice to the crimes of murderers in our society, but is it really just? Studies show that the death penalty is cruel, morally wrong, and sometimes painful. It robs the criminal and the public of their humanity and undermines the value of life. The public should come to realize the cruelty of this law, and this form of punishment should be abolished from the government's criminal justice system. Philosopher's first began to question the justice of capital punishment in the eighteenth century.
Supporters of this form of this sanction believe that capital punishment does more to protect and benefit society than to harm it, in that it could provide closure to a community or deter that community from future crimes (Kay). Some people would associate the death penalty with the saying “an eye for and eye” in that it provides closure to the affected families (Dobbs). Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Ernest Van Den Haag claims, “Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death” (ProCon.org). Naturally, people fear death, therefore people use this logic to claim that the threat of the death penalty daunts criminals who otherwise might not have been.
The second principle, Reductivism, believes that deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation is the best strategy to use to punish, its aim is to reduce crime and use punishment to serve a purpose. This essay will look closer and outline the purpose of just deserts and deterrence as punishment in society, although these punishments are used widely across most crimes, this essay will look specifically at prolific offenders. Emile Durkheims theory of collective consciousness is that everybody in society has common beliefs and sentiments, and to think or act differently would be a moral outrage against that. So crime is inevitable, there will always be people who think differently to others in an organic solidarity society. In the 17th and 18th century, the purpose of punishment in society was to seek revenge and retribution for the crimes, however, in the 18th century classicist criminology thinking emerged in response to the cruel punishments that were handed out.
In order to create a more civilized and morally grounded society, the penalty of death as a means for punishment should be abolished. When first considering arguments against the death penalty, one must first understand the basis of thinking for those who may demand this sort of justice. Immoral actions, for example, illustrate an individual’s ability to act inhuman. Families of the lost loved ones and victims of crimes, for example, feel as though death inflicted upon the guilty party will not heal them from the sorrow and sense of loss they feel. However, because another life may be taken, the death penalty can possibly cause a victim’s family to suffer even more because they feel responsible for the accused criminal’s life as well (Pinker).
As far as the criminal's heinous acts, retribution would more than likely be community service in the town were the crimes occurred. This form of sentencing gives a sort of relief to society making them feel somewhat safer. Additionally, just deserts are a form of sentencing. Just deserts is defined as a perspective on criminal sentencing that holds that criminal offenders are morally blameworthy and are, therefore, deserving of punishment. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 73) Basically, the criminals go out and commit these crime and when they are caught they get what they deserve.