ipl-logo

Arguments Against Retributivism

1926 Words8 Pages

Punishment is an infliction of a penalty that resulted from an offence. Punishment is also naturally justified when administered to those who deserve it. Retributivists claim that people who break the law deserve the punishment they get. Retributivism views punishment as a fair judgment and believe that the state should punish those who are found guilty of their wrongdoing because they deserve it. A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others. In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.

A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts. We will first look into the idea of how we treat people as they deserve. According to Rachels, “Moral judgments about what to do frequently depend on considerations about what will happen as a result of our actions.” (Rachels, 1997). People deserve to be treated the same way they treat others. Rachels has also mentioned that people can control their fates by the way they treat others. When a person does something …show more content…

It is irrelevant to consider whether the bullet had killed B or harmed anyone, what was important is that Person A deserves the punishment because of causing harm to others. Dolinko has mentioned that retributivism is the primary basis of support for the death penalty in the United States and he has mentioned that the majority of the people supporting these do so on retributive grounds. We always have to keep in mind that punishment is different from revenge and that these offenders should deserve the punishment that they are

Show More
Related
1153 Words | 5 Pages

Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be

Read More
785 Words | 4 Pages

In his essay, Lewis makes a lot of good points to the area of retribution vs. rehabilitation. He demonstrates that the two Utilitarian questions about punishment “whether it deters and whether it cures” end up disregarding justice altogether.

Read More
965 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout this paper you will see that guilt and judgment are not resolved without reoccurring conflict. Whether it be internal conflict or external conflict. The Puritan use of ignominy and blame was meant to initiate guilt in a person's mind. When you would commit a crime the punishment was usually equally yoked between man and woman.

Read More
901 Words | 4 Pages

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.

Read More
899 Words | 4 Pages

In his essay Punishment and Desert, philosopher James Rachels describes his thoughts on retributive justice in great detail, and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that “retribution is the only idea that provides the basis of a just system of punishment.” Retributivism is a theory of punishment that aligns with the idea that those who do wrong or commit a crime deserve a punishment that is directly proportional to the severity of their wrongdoing. Retributivistic theory also states that the act itself of punishing a wrongdoer in direct proportion to their actions is a moral necessity. While other theories regarding crime and punishment, such as the utilitarian view, may seek to understand wrongdoing in a grander context, retributivism only

Read More
682 Words | 3 Pages

Retributive justice has been a very prominent form of justice in many of our readings. “Retributive justice is a response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the punishment of lawbreakers and the compensation of victims” (Meyer). I believe that retributive justice is a very prominent form of justice found in our readings. Punishment has been given to the offender. Retributive justice has been found in The New Testament, Approaches by Brunk, and in the Hebrew Bible.

Read More
704 Words | 3 Pages

C.S. Lewis argues for the retributive theory of punishment which states that the punishment is delivering justice that the criminal deserves. That way, a guilty person is “treated a s a human person made in God’s image” who “should have known

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

Retributivism is the idea that one should be punished as one deserved, which is defined by one’s past actions. The principal of desert according to James Rachel is “The key idea is that people deserve to be treated in the same way that they voluntarily choose to treat others.” Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant also believe that punishment should be weighted by one’s past action.

Read More
1616 Words | 7 Pages

When taking into consideration of prison sentences or punishment in general, sentencing committees have the moral duty to consider the criminal’s desires, motives, free will, and moral responsibility. In addition, they should look into whether their decisions are incompliance with consequentialist or retributive jurisdiction and if they are compatible with utilitarianism and if it truly maximizes utility in order to benefit the society. Thus, upon their views, this leaves the discretion of the group to either the maximum and minimum limits there should be to the conviction and the need to place emphasis on justification and punishment when considering offenses. In order to determine a person’s sentencing, there is reason to look into how

Read More
992 Words | 4 Pages

The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter

Read More
246 Words | 1 Pages

Religious philosophy views on punishment differ as definitions lay at opposite ends on a scale. Punishment is an action necessary to have a debt repaid. Ethics matters as a person’s or social group can be under the wrong or right hand. Punishment is a punitive action done to make the offender repay the debt they incurred. It is done for the benefit of the offended (Old Testament in Christian Bible).

Read More
1479 Words | 6 Pages

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).

Read More
1102 Words | 5 Pages

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

Read More
761 Words | 4 Pages

It is also used to describe nonutilitarian theories of punishment based on justice and desert. In its third sense, the term retribution describes punishment that serves a utilitarian purpose: to vent public disgust toward criminals and, as a consequence, to increase respect for the law and eliminate the likelihood that citizens will "take the law into their own hands." Whatever meaning is attached to retribution, the paradigm does not become less desirable than other modes of capital punishment on "retributive" grounds. It is an inappropriate application of the criminal sanction to impose a crueler sanction simply to inflict more suffering upon the offender.

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

For instance, both forms of punishment aim at deterring individuals from committing crimes or engaging in unacceptable behavior. They both seek to restore order and promote good behavior. Additionally, both forms of punishment impose some limits on an individual's

Read More

More about Arguments Against Retributivism

Related Topics

Open Document