McDonald Matthew TA: Andrew Moon
Insert Catchy Title Here In this paper I will argue that the retributivist theory of punishment is superior to the rule utilitarian theory of punishment. I will do this by first explaining each theory, and give each theory's strengths and weaknesses. I will then give my own assessment of each theory, and explain why the retributivist theory is preferable to the rule utilitarian theory. Retributivists base their theory of punishment on the following principles. An act of punishment is morally justified if and only if: 1. The person punished has been convicted of a crime. 2. The crime was an intentional violation of a morally permissible law. 3. The punishment is appropriate for the crime. A punishment is considered to be appropriate when it is just, as determined by the wrongness of the crime and the criminals degree of responsibility. [Notes] Essentially, a Retributivist believes that if someone is guilty of a crime, then it is morally correct to punish that person with the appropriate punishment according to the law. Retributivists believe that criminals are self-governing individuals who have earned a penalty that justice requires us to provide, and in providing the penalty we actually show respect for their dignity. Another way at looking at justice from a retributivist's point of view would be to imagine that an evil puts society out of balance, and the only way to put society in balance is for an equal evil to be exacted upon the criminal. Hence the phrase, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...".
One of Retributivism's strong points is that it explains how it is wrong to punish the innocent and to give excessive or overly lenient punishments; this is actually one of the basic tenets of Retributivism, and is found in nearly every modern society today. Another strength of Retributivism is that it sees criminals as free, responsible agents who earn their punishment. Retributivism's third strength is that it actually explains how punishment is a good thing; after all, in punishing criminals we are actually showing them respect and giving them what they have earned. However, there are several objections to Retributivism. The first objection is that Retributivism causes people to have feelings of revenge, which can be hateful and is considered to be morally inappropriate. Another objection to retributivism is that it is too focused, and does not allow for circumstances which may require atypical actions, such as repeat offenders and plea bargaining. Finally, one argument against retributivism is that it does nothing to bring more good into the world. Punishments inflict evil onto the criminals, but victims receive no reparations; nothing is done for the sake of deterring or rehabilitating criminals. According to the Rule Utilitarian Theory of Punishment, a system of punishment is morally justified in and only if no other alternative would produce more net good for the society, and an act of punishment is morally justified if and only if it is authorized by the rules of system of punishment that is morally justified for the society. [Notes] In other words, Rule Utilitarianism breaks down the subject of punishment into two parts, the system of laws and corresponding penalties, and the actual acts of punishment to be carried out in each individual case. If the system of laws and their corresponding penalties will bring the most good to a society, then that system is morally justified. Each
individual act of punishment is morally justified if the system under which the person was convicted. Rule Utilitarianism's strongest point is how it explains punishment to be good; it has already been determined that the punishment brings the most good for society, and so the correct punishment is naturally the best option. In addition, Rule Utilitarianism is much broader than other punishment theories, and takes into account special circumstances such as repeat offenders and plea bargaining. In comparison with retributivism, Utilitarianism does not teach a "doctrine of revenge", as the motive for each act of punishment to better society and not punishment for the sake of punishment. appears Retributivism to be an enlightened approach to punishment, if only because it considers more aspects of the situation. One of the main objections to Rule Utilitarianism is that it misses the fact that some acts of punishment are wrong simply because they don't give the individual what he or she deserves. It is possible that a person could commit a horrific crime, but if it is not in the society's best interest to punish the criminal then the criminal should go unpunished according to Rule Utilitarianism. Another problem with Rule Utilitarianism is that it only sees criminals as a way to achieve a common good; it does not view them as independent people, nor treat them as such. I do not support the Rule Utilitarianism Theory of Punishment for several reasons. First and foremost, I can not agree with a system that does not hold people accountable for their actions; if people have nothing to prevent them from doing something, then they will do so if they think it might benefit them, regardless of the cost to others. One of the primary reasons that laws have punishments assigned to them is to deter people from
breaking the law. Consider two situations: In the first instance, there is no punishment for the sale, possession, or use of crystal meth. Crystal meth is a highly addictive drug that causes users to have an altered sense of reality, and eventually begin to hallucinate even when not under the influence of the drug. Many people's lives are ruined because of an addiction to crystal meth. Because there is no punishment for selling the drug, people unaware of meth's properties may purchase it easily, and they will eventually lose control of their lives. In another situations, the sale, possession, and use of crystal meth is punishable by life imprisonment without parole. Because people do not want to go to prison, they will be much less likely to abuse the drug. Rule Utilitarianism does not even consider the idea of deterring potential criminals, it only deals with bringing more good into society. If the crystal meth industry improved two lives for each life the drug harmed, then according to Rule Utilitarianism there is nothing wrong with crystal meth. One of the objections against Retributivism is that is does not make reparations to the victims or bring good into society. However, if a punishment prevents a future evil from occurring, then is that not good itself? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and if once particularly harsh punishment prevents 100 murders, then few would argue that the punishment was not a good thing. Another objection to Retributivism is that it is too focused and does not take repeat offenders and plea bargaining into account. However, back in the basis of retributivism it states that the punishment is according to the "intentional violation" and the "criminals degree of responsibility". A repeat offender has had it already made explicitly clear to them what is not allowed; being more aware of the crime and still committing it, the level of the intent in the violation and therefore their responsibility would be higher, which would in turn deserve a more serious punishment
as it is a more serious crime. Conversely, with plea bargaining the end result is a compromise. Often times a criminal will help to convict other criminals in return for a slightly lesser sentence whereas other times simply to prevent a long, expensive legal battle. In both cases the result of the plea bargain is that more people who would not otherwise be punished for their crimes will be; whether by a plea bargainer's testimony, or with resources and time that otherwise would have been wasted pursuing an extra five years of imprisonment on top of a lifetime sentence. To summarize, Retributivism states that the punishment should be equal to the crime. Rule Utilitarianism states that a punishment is morally correct only if no alternative brings more good for society. Because a punishment equal to a crime might not benefit society, Rule Utilitarianism has too many problems to be an acceptable theory regarding punishment, as does not even hold people accountable for their actions.