Bedau's Justification Of Punishment

HLA Hart wrote that any justification of punishment must at least justify the existence of a general system of punishment, the punishment of specific persons, and the specific type (and amount) of punishment to be imposed in a given scenario (Duff). With respect to the first component, which he called the “general justifying aim” of the system of punishment (Duff), there are several purposes for instituting a penal system; the most common of which are general deterrence, specific deterrence, incarceration/incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. While it is easy to see how each of these can be beneficial and justify the general punishment system in the abstract, upon closer examination the existence of multiple underlying justifications
In the same entry, Bedau identifies four primary “constraints in the use of penal threats and coercion” that must exist “to preserve a just social system”. These four constraints are that “punishments must not be so severe as to be inhumane;” accused and convicted offenders are entitled to certain rights with respect to the convicting and sentencing processes; “punitive severity must accord with the relative severity of the crime” where “the severity of the crime is a function of the relative importance of the reasons we have to dissuade people from committing it;” and “given any two punishments not ruled out by any of the prior principles and roughly equal in retributive and preventive effects for a given offense and class of offenders, the less severe punishment is to be preferred to the more severe” (Bedau). Assuming John’s is a liberal state and accepts these fundamental constrains on punishment, lets explore some of the punishments he could
These punishments could vary in type and amount, but a liberal society requires that if a given type of punishment can attain a certain degree of prevention with a lesser amount of punishment than other types, it is to be preferred. Let us assume then that, in John’s case, the least amount of punishment that precludes him from driving under the influence would be impounding his car and revoking his driver’s license for a defined period of time. He may also be detained until he is no longer affected by the drugs/alcohol, but a longer detention would be unnecessary to prevent him from committing the crime again if he cannot drive when he is