Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes helpfulness. In this theory, punishment is warranted only if it promotes over-all happiness. C.S. Lewis refers to utilitarianism as humanitarian in his essay. Contrary to the general humanitarian viewpoint, which sees punishment as precautionary, Lewis believes that it denies criminals of their humanity. He states, "when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a 'case." 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. …show more content…
Obviously punishment is key in a theory of punishment; however, it might be more effective if it also included prevention. Also, I think all would agree that the punishment must be just. Lewis says that punishment is the criminal’s right, that he deserves it. Where Lewis differs from the others is that he argues that a criminal deserves their punishment and nothing more; a criminal cannot be a means to someone else’s ends. In the end, a criminal’s punishment cannot be a test-trial for societal well-being or progress. Punishment must be just and it must be fair. Essentially, justice cannot be absence from society, because in the absence of justice, sentencing will be based on more than just the criminal’s wrongdoing. Out of the three, Lewis is the only one that believes that the criminal will be turned into the kind of person society wants him to be. Both of the others hold that the criminal will never be able to pay his debt to