That appearance has led to some fuzzy thinking. The correct meaning must be that the primary aim of punishment can be achieved short of exacting the death penalty. A single means-say, life imprisonment-restores the order lost by the crime, protects society against future crimes of the incarcerated, and gives the prisoner a chance to repent. The paragraph should not be read as making the protection of society trump everything else. Why?
Hobbs, Beccaria, and Bentham provided the foundation for modern deterrence theory in criminology (Mutchnick, Martin, Austin 2009). Those who support Deterrence Theory are of the opinion that the degree of punishment affects an individual’s choice to obey or violate the law. Beccaria held the belief that the certainty of punishment, even if it is mild in application, would deter individuals from committing crimes more so than the fear of a more severe punishment that is combined with the possibility of impunity. (Mutchnick,et al. 2009).
Whether or not someone is a criminal, the individual is still a human being, which is what Kant fails to recognize. In conclusion, from examining the two articles we can see Kant’s doctrine on crime, punishment, and justice. After a critique of Kant’s perspective, it is shown how Kant’s forms of punishment are a violation of humanity. I believe that capital punishment is a way for society to dispose their unwanted criminals I believe that it is uncivil and inhumane to kill someone regardless of the reason and to physically make them suffer. As humans we should all be given a second chance to correct our mistakes rather than stigmatizing individuals and taking ones fate into our own hands.
Justification of Punishment ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.
Capital Punishment and Deterrence Abstract Capitol Punishment has been around since the beginning of mankind; eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Since then the public have debated for or against capital punishment revolving around issues of deterrence, retribution, discrimination and Irreversibility. Leaving us with the responsibility to analyze the factors surrounding capital punishment. A number of studies have also been done specifically on the deterrent effects of capital punishment. Many officials believes that capital punishment not only prevent s the offender from committing additional crimes but deters others as well.
Capital Punishment Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed.
It presumes that individuals act rationally in their own interests and therefore will seek to escape the pain that punishment brings. Deterrence was intended for the law-abiding individual as well as those prone to criminal behavior. Evidence that it has served to diminish the extent of crime in society is minimal. If punishments do not serve to deter crime, they should be abolished. (www.sun.coci.niu.edu) As pointed out by the American Civil Liberties Union, the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantee of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.
Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment.
Still, critics continue to argue that “There is no proof that the death penalty has a deterrent effect” (Source A). Even though these critics are correct in that there is no proof, research would nearly be impossible to conduct due to the numerous variables that affect criminal activity. Because of the rationale behind the natural fear of death, it is logical to infer that the death penalty does in fact dissuade criminals from committing truly horrendous