Retribution: Impractical to Implement

1721 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Utilitarian theory of punishment

In this paper, I will be arguing that retributivism is impractical to implement as a theory of punishment based on the judgments of desert, proportionality and moral responsibility. In order to do so, I will begin by giving a definition of punishment. Punishment can be defined as “the authorized imposition of deprivations—of freedom or privacy or other goods which the person otherwise has a right, or the imposition of special burdens—because the person has been found guilty of some criminal violation…” (Bedau, “Punishment”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Punishment can be seen as a conceptual structure that can be just or unjust. For example, punishment can be unjust if it is excessive and if it is lenient in how much a criminal is punished. Retributivism can then be used as a single aim or principle to justify a conceptual institutional structure like punishment.
Retributivism is a form of punishment that requires that the punishment fit the crime. There are two justifications for retributivism: retributivism is justified in punishing those who deserve punishment and that we should punish those who deserve punishment in proportion to their desert. There is a third justification for retributivism, which states that the weight of the criminal offence stems only from the individual’s own act and not anywhere else. Thus, retributivism reflects the principles of desert and proportionality in pursuing justice because it justifies punishments to deserving parties in equal value to the severity of the criminal act. In other words, a person’s criminal deed(s) follows with its own punishment. Retributivism states that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crimes. In this theory of punishment, individuals are only punis...

... middle of paper ...

...m fails as a theory of punishment that punishes persons in proportion to their moral desert.
In conclusion, retributivism can be more plausible as a theory of punishment because fails to establish practical applications of its claims within society. Retributivists are unable to determine the scale of a person’s individual desert based upon his or her act. However, we cannot be certain of the offender’s mindset beyond a reasonable doubt and thus, we cannot be accurate in determining that the deserving punishment is in congruent with retributivism. Accuracy is not guaranteed in our judgments about desert, proportionality, and moral responsibility. Therefore, since our judgments on such issue may differ from the actual values of desert, proportionality and moral responsibility, it will be impossible for retributivism to be implemented as an institution of punishment.

Show More
Related

  • Capital Punishment

    1397 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Martin Perlmutter's essay "Desert and Capital Punishment," he attempts to illustrate that social utility is a poor method of evaluating the legitimacy of it. Perlmutter claims that a punishment must be "backward looking," meaning that it is based on a past wrongdoing. A utilitarian justification of capital punishment strays from the definition of the term "punishment" because it is "forward looking." An argument for social utility maintains that the death penalty should result in a greater good and the consequences must outweigh the harm, thereby increasing overall happiness in the world. Perlmutter recognizes the three potential benefits of a punishment as the rehabilitation of an offender, protection for other possible victims, and deterring other people from committing the same crime. The death penalty however, obviously does not rehabilitate a victim nor does it do a better job at protecting other potential victims than life imprisonment. Since a punishment must inflict harm on an individual, deterrence is the only argument that utilitarians can use to defend the death penalty. The question then ari...

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense

    140 Words  | 1 Pages

    The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.

    Read More

  • Igor Primoratz's Categotiation Argument

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the argument for abolishing or retention of the death penalty, Igor Primoratz took the Pro-retributivism stand for the retention of the death penalty. In Primoratz’s “A Life for A Life,” he argues against the abolitionists utilitarianism stand on the issue of the death penalty. Primoratz argues on the premises that- (a) “Punishment is morally Justified insofar as it is meted out as retribution for offense committed” (Primoratz 356.) (b) Death is the only proportional punishment for murder; (c) Death is the only effective deterrence measure for murder. In response to Primoratz choice to use Kant’s Retributivism argument as the basis for his pro-retention argument for the death penalty, similarly Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used as a measuring stick to validate or refute Primoratz’s argument for the retention of the death penalty.

    Read More

  • A Defense Of Retributivism Essay

    1823 Words  | 4 Pages

    This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.

    Read More

  • Reasons In Igor Primoratz's Justifying Legal Punishment?

    1355 Words  | 3 Pages

    Igor Primoratz defends the retributivist idea that a punishment is justified only if it gives a criminal his just deserts. But what do criminals deserve? Primoratz argues for the following principle: criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims of. Primoratz regards all human beings as possessed of lives of equal moral worth, and believes that the human life is the most valuable thing. He thinks that murders deserve to die. Since justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, it follows that justice demands for murderers to be executed.

    Read More

  • The Canadian Criminal Justice System

    574 Words  | 2 Pages

    The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.

    Read More

  • Is Parole Ineffective of Effective in Curbing Recidivism?

    2253 Words  | 5 Pages

    All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...

    Read More

  • Retribution In Canada

    502 Words  | 2 Pages

    Retribution is the philosophy best explained by the famous saying, “an eye for an eye”. Those that believe in this form of justice hold a strict and harsh view on punishments for crime. The proponents of retribution believe that severe penalties act as deterrence to future crime, however, studies

    Read More

  • Capital Punishment: A Perspective from Death Row

    1036 Words  | 3 Pages

    punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals

    Read More

  • Herbert Morris's Theory Of Punishment

    1614 Words  | 4 Pages

    Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Retribution

    537 Words  | 2 Pages

    Retribution – is a correctional aim which is to hold a person who has committed a crime accountable for committing a crime against another or society in the form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) What we look at in retribution is when someone is punished there is legitimacy in the punishment of a particular crime that was committed. Some of the pros of retribution are retribution can make a person or society feel safer or a feeling of justice being served when a person is punished for the crime they committed. The con of retribution is during court proceedings the prosecution and the offender’s lawyer may come to a plea agreement which could give the offender a lesser sentence than what he or she would have gotten originally. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013)

    Read More

  • Justification of Punishment!

    2840 Words  | 6 Pages

    Regarding the justification of punishment philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Deontologists like Mabbott, Ewing and Hawkins, on the other hand, believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive grounds. That is to say, according to them, only the past fact that a man has committed a crime is sufficient enough to justify the punishment inflicted on him. But D.D. Raphael is found to reconcile between the two opposite views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved.

    Read More

  • Let the Punishment Fit the Crime in the State of California

    1310 Words  | 3 Pages

    My sentence has been put into place as an individual punishment based upon my actions, yet there is so much more to it than that. Several perceptions towards how and why a criminal should be punished have been acknowledged over the years. Today, there are t...

    Read More

  • Does The Punishment Fit The Crime?

    864 Words  | 2 Pages

    Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.

    Read More

  • The Purpose of Punishment in a Modern Society

    2222 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Retribution: Impractical to Implement

Open Document