And Utilitarian Views Of Punishment example essay topic

In my opinion the Retributivist approach to Capital Punishment is the more appropriate view. The Retributivist believes that evil done with a vengeance should be repaid with punishment in-kind. In order to protect society and prevent crime, the death penalty has to be the most severe form of punishment with the biggest impact on society. Persons who commit murder should suffer and be punished for their inexcusable action (s). The principles of suggest that a convicted murderer should be executed because they "deserve" and "have earned" the death sentence. The right of retaliation can only be made equal by balancing of the crime with the punishment even if it is the death penalty.

Those opposed to the death penalty argue that on moral grounds, all lives are sacred and killing is always wrong, a society, which kills, is no better than the murderer's being punished. The Retributivist maintains that the death must be kept free from all maltreatment that would cause suffering to be loathsome or abominable. Punishment and more specifically "Capital Punishment" is a very controversial and sensitive subject. Not all countries actively enforce Capital Punishment as a punishment, for a person found guilty by a Judge and / or Jury.

Punishment is repairing an injustice - "Making a wrong right". However, the question is "once a person has been convicted and sentenced to the death penalty" who has the more appropriate point of view: a) The Retributivist: Legal Retributivist says that if a law is broken, punishment must result, regardless of any moral effects. Moralistic is concerned with the wrongdoing itself; if pain and grief have occurred, the criminal should be compensated with an equal punishment to the crime. Convicted felons must be punished and suffer to the full extent of their crime. It is morally fitting that a person who does wrong should suffer in proportion to their wrongdoing. Society must inflict as much pain and suffering on convicted criminals as was inflicted during the commission of their crime (s). b) The Utilitarian: A moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility.

Utilitarianism is applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Convicted felons must be dealt with quickly, efficiently and cost effectively. Society should not have to deal with these convicted criminals twice. If punishment can be shown to promote effectively in the interest of society it is justifiable, otherwise it is not. Utilitarian RetributivistMaximize social benefit (maximize the benefit, minimize the harms) The offender should experience the exact injustice inflicted Focuses upon the goal of punishment in each individual case Offender deserves to experience the suffering or suffering inflicted by the criminal act Punishment is morally best which produces the maximum deterrence of criminal harm with the minimum amount of harm to the offender Emphasis on the Goal of punishment rather than on an abstract reason Individual cases of punishment are justified if they are in accord with the rules of the justified Punishment system No equality between the crime of murder and the retaliation except by judicial system executing the criminal Punish only persons who have actually committed crimes, reduction murder rate Make offender "take responsibility" for action, By re-paying the debt to society Number of lives saved, must be exceeded by the number of lives executed Punish the bad because they deserve it Punishment must effectively promotes the interests of society Punishment must never be greater than what the convicted criminal deserves Legislator, forward-thinking, justification Judge, past-thinking, specific crime Only suffering can atone for sin In the criminal justice system, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A person is fully entitled to a claim of innocence if charges are not brought against them, or if they are proven to be not guilty.

There have been cases, which are processed through the judicial system, and have conclusively determined a person to be innocent. The evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person was responsible for and consequently deserved the punishment identified for the crime charged. The logic of lawbreaking is that punishment to some degree will follow. If this were not the case, we would have no way of knowing what was a law. It is, by punishment of the infractions that laws become apparent. Punishment is the clear signal of the law.

The degree of punishment is the difference between Retributivist and Utilitarian. These two terms are not found in any legal definitions and are not taught as part of the Justice system. These are philosophical terms on how society should exact punishment on persons who have been duly processed through the legal system and have been found guilty of crimes against society. The Death Penalty is defended as a cost-effective alternative to life imprisonment.

However, it is more costly to execute an inmate than to have that person serve a life sentence (Amnesty International, 1987). A 1982 study in New York reported the average capital murder trail and the first stage of appeals costs U.S. taxpayers $1.8 million. It is estimated that this is less than it would cost to incarcerate someone for one hundred years. Other sources estimate that it can cost up to $2.2 million to obtain and carry out a death sentence.

The principal factor in this cost is the appeals process, which lasts an average of 10 years and is deemed necessary to reduce the likelihood of the execution of innocent persons. These statistics clearly indicate that the Death Penalty is not a cost-saving exercise. The Justice system is attempting to right-a-wrong and / or protect society from future pain and suffering from the actions of a criminal. It has often been claimed that punishment cannot be entirely justified within a utilitarian approach. There are those pure anti-utilitarians who think that the utilitarians can do nothing to justify Capital Punishment. Hybrid theorists' claim that utilitarianism can be used as a way to determine how severe punishment should be, but non-utilitarians considerations need to determine who should be punished.

The Utilitarian view is consequential ist - it justifies punishment in terms of the goal of maintaining social order. This view is hard to distinguish from pure revenge. The Parliament of Canada abolished the death penalty as a sentencing option in 1976 (Amnesty International 1987); the United States of America still has the death penalty in certain states. The following grid provides a picture of the states with the death penalty as well as the method: Lethal Injection Lethal Injection Electrocution Hanging Firing Squad Lethal Gas Arizona New Hampshire Alabama Delaware Idaho Arizona Arkansas New Jersey Arkansas New Hampshire Oklahoma California California New Mexico Florida Washington Utah Maryland Colorado New York Georgia Mississippi Connecticut North Carolina Kentucky Missouri Delaware Ohio Nebraska North Carolina Idaho Oklahoma Ohio Wyoming Illinois Oregon Oklahoma Indiana Pennsylvania South Carolina Kansas South Carolina Tennessee Kentucky South Dakota Virginia Louisiana Tennessee Maryland Texas Mississippi Utah Missouri Virginia Montana Washington Nevada Wyoming There are currently 12 states without the death penalty: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

There are (as of July 1, 1998) 3,474 Inmates on Death Row in the United States of America. Americans are justifiably concerned about the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. Capital Punishment in the United States today provides no reliable safeguards against this danger. Errors can and have been made repeatedly in the trial of death penalty cases. A Death Penalty Information Center report released July 15, 1997 reported that 69 cases in 19 states of innocent people who have been released from death row since 1973 (21 since 1993) and a list of pending cases in which evidence of innocence may lead to future releases.

Statistics have proven that errors have occurred during due process because of poor representation, racial prejudice, misconduct, or simply the presentation of erroneous evidence. Once convicted, a death row inmate faces serious obstacles in convincing any tribunal that he / she is innocent. Judging from past experiences, a substantial number of death row inmates could possibly be innocent (or lack insufficient evidence for the death penalty) and will still be executed. The danger is inherent in the punishment itself and the extravagance of human nature. The danger is enhanced by the failure to provide adequate counsel and the narrowing of the opportunities to raise the issue of innocence on appeal.

Once the execute on occurs the error is final. Our criminal justice system is not perfect, and the existence of capital punishment creates a chance that innocent people could be put to death. The opportunity for error is present in all verdicts and punishments. It is the finality of execution that distinguishes capital punishment. The government can release and compensate someone mistakenly sent to jail and who is later proven to be innocent of the crime. Unfortunately for those who have been executed, the state can only offer condolences to their families.

Executions are cruel and inhumane. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems. Hanging, as a mode of execution, is still available in a few American states. If the drop is too short, there will be a slow and agonizing death by strangulation.

If the drop is too long the head will be torn off. In Idaho and Utah, the firing squad is still the acceptable form of execution. The prisoner is strapped into a chair and hooded. A target is pinned to the chest, and sharpshooters take aim and fire. Electrocution has been the most widely used form of execution in the United States in this century. The prisoner is led (or dragged) into the death chamber, then strapped into the chair and electrodes are fastened to the head and legs.

Evidence suggests that death by electrical current is extremely violent and inflicts pain and indignities far beyond the 'mere of life'. Witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner 'cringes', 'leaps' and 'fights the straps with amazing strength. ' 'The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands. ' The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes and face are severely contorted.

The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and 'rest on the cheeks'. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool". During this form of execution, there is an awful order of burning flesh and smoke often rises from the head. The question has been raised whether electrocutions are "nothing less than the contemporary technological equivalent of burning people at the stake" Death Penalty criminals deserve to be punished, and punished with severity according to the harm they have caused to the innocent. However, severity of punishment has its limits, imposed both by justice and our own human dignities. A less cruel method of executing death row inmates could be nitrogen asphyxiation as a lethal injection.

This is a unique way to die. The victim is not racked by choking, burning or any breathing abnormalities. The victim never realizes what is happening, because he or she passes out when the blood oxygen falls too low. Lethal injections are characterized by some to be painless, neat and a humane method of execution. Should a murderer, convicted of a heinous crime, have such a luxury? Did the murder's victim die such a peaceful, calm, dignified death?

Is the death penalty morally just? The death penalty is often argued that it is what convicted murderers deserve "like for like", "an eye for an eye". The Retributivist's fundamental principle in this thinking is that " the punishment fit the crime". If this principle is interpreted correctly then punishments are only acceptable if the punishment is exactly like the crime.

This principle would demand us to rape rapists, torture torturers and inflict other horrible and degrading punishments on convicted offenders. A case in point, an eleven-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. Society would be greatly remise d if offenders such as these four men were quietly put to death after the tragic pain and torture inflicted on such a young innocent child. What suffering should these men been subjected to in order to feel that justice has been served?

The Death Penalty is legally just according to the Retributivist. The trial is the critical time for the defendant (accused) to make their case for innocence. The manner in which defense counsel is selected and compensated for in death penalty cases does not always protect the defendants' rights at this pivotal time. The nation's death rows have always had a disproportionately large population of African-Americans, (relative to the fraction of the total population). Over the past century, black offenders, were more often executed for crimes than white offenders. Black offenders received the death penalty for such crimes as rape and burglary.

Between 1930 and 1976,455 men were executed for rape of whom 405 (or 90%) were black. A higher percentage of the blacks who were executed were juveniles, black offenders were more often executed than whites without having their conviction reviewed by any higher court. Discrimination against poor offenders is also well established. Approximately 905 of those on death row could not afford to hire a high profile lawyer. The Court has the power to impose Death or grant mercy. If death is the sentence than justice has been served and all the checks and balances have been observed to ensure fairness and justice.

James Mills, a British philosopher, contends that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied", that is, human discontent is better than the animal fulfillment. The Utilitarian assumes that pain is evil in itself. They feel obligated to demonstrate that the consequences of their punishment outweigh the "damage" done by the pain they apply as punishment. A Utilitarian would give an answer to Capital Punishment as " we wish to punish those who commit crimes in order to keep them away from those who do not commit crimes" while the Retributivist would answer the same question as " he / she did this so he / she must be punished".

The Utilitarian theory is based on the premise of "fear" acting as a threat. This threat is supposed to be sufficient to deter people from committing crimes. The notion of effective threats, implies that some kind of reaction is invoked in the person who is planning to commit a crime, or who without planning, feels like committing a crime. As a justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder for fear of being executed themselves ("general deterrence") - and, that the murderer who is executed will not kill again ("specific deterrence"). The deterrent is fear. Study after study has failed to find an effective deterrent for Capital Punishment.

One can immediately see the difficulty with this justification for punishment. Studies have reported the following: (a) Adjacent states, in which one has a death penalty and the other does not, show no significant long-term differences in the murder rate; (b) States that use the death penalty seem to have a higher number of homicides than states that do not use it; (c) States that abolish and then reintroduce the death penalty do not seem to show any significant change in the murder rate; The actual utilitarian view of punishment is based solely on society's greater good when dealing with punishment. The utilitarian objection to the's actual gain in "an eye for an eye" is that the only accomplishment is more pain, wronging a wrong to make it right, is it really our best course of action? Thus, the utilitarian view states when punishment is warranted for the current or the future benefit of society, it should be carried out, but no general answer like "eye for an eye" will follow this plan. The punishment is determined by what will produce the least harm and / or the most good for all who will be affected by it. The would point out that under this view, if punishment of an innocent person can be used to increase good or decrease harm, the utilitarian principle would be justified.

Although the and utilitarian views of punishment differ, I believe that both these ideas exist in the legal system. There are two positions to punishment: a judge follows, looking to the past event to determine punishment, whereas the legislators follow the utilitarian view, looking to the future at all possible general cases. There are problems with the apparent coexistence of these two views of punishment. A cannot allow utility to be too involved in determining punishment, since there guiding principle is that those guilty of wrongdoing must be punished, no matter what. Imagine a scenario where so many criminals get away with a crime, that a utilitarian viewing body of law might decide to punish a token innocent in order to calm public fears. Justice is the theory and practice of exacting the price for the action.

Convicted murderers should be put to death because they deserve to die. Utilitarian and humanitarian considerations are irrelevant..