Retributivist View Of Punishment

1813 Words4 Pages

Boluwatife Rasheed Abudu
“Critically assess the view that unless punishment is a response to moral fault, it is unjustified.”
ABSTRACT
There are two major schools of thought that agree that punishment can be justified. The utilitarians believe punishment can be justified exclusively by its consequences and its long-term usefulness to the society, while the deontologists are of the view that the justification for punishment is based upon retributive grounds. There is an unpopular third school which attempts to reconcile both grounds. This thought school believes that punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. I for one believe in the retributivist view that punishment is justified when it is deserved. For the purpose of addressing this essay question however, the distinction ought to be made as to whether or not punishment is justified when it responds to a moral fault, or as a social concept which justifies regulated state restraint of individuals. Both are retributivist views. This paper will aim to discuss in detail what moral retributivism entails, and juxtapose it with legal retributivism, with the conclusion …show more content…

Every retributivist believes in the elemental notion that:
“criminal behaviour constitute(s) a violation of the moral or natural order and having offended that order, requires payment of some

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

  • Penitionism In David Boonin's The Problem Of Punishment

    1589 Words  | 4 Pages

    Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). 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. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view

    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

  • Death Penalty: Deontological And Teleological Arguments

    238 Words  | 1 Pages

    The death penalty in American society using the deontological and teleological argument is in the deontological perspective, believes that the death penalty is a morally appropriate punishment and also views capital punishment as being immoral. In deontological argument, it will place moral emphasis on the intentions of his or her actions. The deontological ethics does not focus on the actual consequences. A deontological defense of punishment is likely to be a retributive justification. According to Kant, he believes in the retributive punishment, which is known as the idea of “an eye for an eye”, meaning the law says that we should punish someone not because what they did was wrong, but to just punish them for the sake of punishing.

    Read More

  • Goals Of Criminal Sentencing: Affect The Decisions Of Restorative Justice

    1087 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first of the five goals of sentencing is retribution. This goal is pretty cut and dry because it states that “we are justified in punishing because and only because offenders deserve it” (Moore 1992: 188). Those who do the crime must ultimately do the time. This punishment should be appropriate to the type and severity of the crime committed. Retributivists look at the

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.

    Read More

  • Justifications for Punishment in Modern Society

    1614 Words  | 4 Pages

    Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.

    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 Retributivist View Of Punishment

Open Document