Kant's Perspective on Crime, Punishment, and Justice

1829 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Capital punishment compare and contrast

Punishment is the suffering, pain, or loss that serves at retribution. Others also say it is “the authoritative imposition of something unpleasant on a person in response to a behavior deemed to be wrong by an individual or group” (Hugo & McAnany, 2010). Some question when and why we should punish. Though easy to state, this question is difficult to answer and has lead to a variety of models of punishment. In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice. After, I will critique Kant’s perspective and explain the benefits and flaws about it. Last, I will end off by stating my own personal opinion on Kant’s perspective and why I disagree with it. 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. He believes that people only get punished because they are guilty of committing a crime, and for no other reason. Therefore, people are punished more harshly for more seri...

... middle of paper ...

... no one can dispose of his own life” (Kant, 1996). Barely anyone would ever consent to the death of his or her own life; therefore no one should have the right to take it. 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.

Show More
Related

  • Igor Primoratz's Categotiation Argument

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    The les talionis approach to capital punishment should not be limited only murder just because “the uniqueness of the crime has to do with the uniqueness of the value which has been deliberately destroyed” (Primoratz 357.) To approach one crime and punishment with a retributive mindset clearly fails Kant’s decree that “an action is permissible if the maxim can be universalized” (Vaughn 122.) If the punishment for murder is death, then all other punishment for any other crime should resemble the

    Read More

  • Kant Capital Punishment

    1888 Words  | 4 Pages

    Before addressing the dilemma of capital punishment and its relation to Kant's "Respect for Persons" ethics, it is important to be informed of the background of this dilemma. A topic of growing and heated debate in today's society, capital punishment involves many more aspects than the average citizen may think. This controversial practice, which is also commonly referred to as the death penalty, is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Today, the federal government and thirty-two of the fifty states permit execution for first-degree murder. (Death Penalty Information Center) A majority of executions are carried out through lethal injection, but electrocution, hanging, the gas chamber, and firing squads are still legal in a few states. In states that allow for more than one option, death row inmates are allowed to choose their execution given qualifying circumstances. Under specific circumstances and in certain jurisdictions, treason, kidnapping, aggravated rape, felony murder, and murder while unde...

    Read More

  • The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

    1055 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

    1095 Words  | 3 Pages

    Reason 1: According to Kant, one should be punished only because one has committed a crime, and the level of

    Read More

  • Bernard Williams's Critique Of Kantian Moral Theory

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.

    Read More

  • Kantian Perspective: Fairness And Justice Immanuel Kant Case Analysis

    1820 Words  | 4 Pages

    In chapter 11 The Kantian Perspective: Fairness and Justice Immanuel Kant suggests that the clear cut basic works upon the same technique as the ethical law and it is likewise disregarded by the individuals who accept who apply "double standards ". The downright basic may further be recognized as a prerequisite to not regard other objective creatures as means, for Kant communicates that every single reasonable being contain the capacity of pressing together objectives, yet never see themselves as just an intends to another reason for their moves are eventually made all alone benefit and are finishes in themselves. Immanuel Kant thought along these lines and was prone to the most splendid savant ever to have done as such. He remains maybe the

    Read More

  • Kant and Mill’s Positions on Capital Punishment

    1862 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant believes in the theory of the categorical imperative, which states that people should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (Kant 31) In other words, people should act only in such a way that their actions can become a law that can be applied universally (to everyone). In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s definition of a crime is any act that violates the public law (Kant 105) and the right to punish is “the right a ruler has against a subject to inflict pain upon him because of his having committed a crime.” (Kant 104) According to Kant, laws exist to protect society. Without them, society cannot exist and, thus, they must be enforced in a way such that people who follow the laws are considered members of society, and people that violate the laws lose their right to be members of society and, therefore, must be punished. The level of punishment that should be advocated towards the criminal should be equivalent to the severity of the crime. Simply put, “an eye for an...

    Read More

  • Morally Permissible To Torture A Child Essay

    1344 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his second imperative he stated that we have to “always treat rational beings as an end and never as a means only” (Vaughn, p.114). Of course they’re true, in this situation we would be using the child as means to an end. Since we’re torturing him to locate the terrorist. However I can also argue that this is where Kant’s theory is too absolute. In this situation would you save millions of lives by torturing one child or be the reason why millions and many more had to die because you couldn’t torture one

    Read More

  • Death Penalty in the U.S

    1231 Words  | 3 Pages

    First, let us get an understanding of what crime really is, as well as the right to punish. A crime as defined by Immanuel Kant is “a violation of social laws” meaning a violation that would be committed against a society. (www.philosophos.com) In order for a society to be functional it must have laws and regulations regarding these violations and any disobedience with the laws would be subject to punishment. So who can administer these punishments and decide to what degree it will punish? Kant tells us t...

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Utilitarianism And Kantian Ethics

    843 Words  | 2 Pages

    First we will start with the historical example of the execution of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was put into a situation where a large crowd had attempted to persuade him that Jesus should be killed instead of a convicted murderer, even though Jesus had done nothing wrong. The majority won and he was killed. The Utilitarians can justify this action because the majority gained happiness from this. On the other hand, those who support Kant’s theory will argue that Jesus had done nothing wrong and his right were clearly violated making the action

    Read More

  • Debate on Capital Punishment: A Kantian Perspective

    972 Words  | 2 Pages

    (351). I feel that Kant’s retributivism is a good law to follow when deciding how to punish a guilty person, to some extent. I feel that retributivism should be used to the fullest extent if the crime is murder or stealing; however, I feel that retributivism should not be used in the exact form as stated when dealing with other crimes such as rape. I feel that to have someone rape a rapist would not be moral or fair to the both parties, and that life in prison would be a more equivalent punishment.

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Arguments Against Capital Punishment

    448 Words  | 1 Pages

    “A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral.” — Immanuel Kant

    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 Kant's Perspective on Crime, Punishment, and Justice

Open Document