Is Punishment Inherently Good Or Evil

In this essay I will be addressing the problems associated with deterrence and retribution, whether consequentialism is adequate for justifying punishment and whether our view on human nature effects our view of social justice. I will also be discussing whether we are inherently good or evil and how that informs our view of punishment. In any society people transgress but the attendant sanctions differ.

The question of whether man is inherently good or evil has vexed humanity since its appearance. Is man naturally good? Does he live in a state of the noble savage? Or was his natural habitat ,nasty , brutish and short? These questions are important because they help inform the way in which we treat our fellow human beings and structure of society. They also affect the way in which we approach punishment; those advocating utilitarianism tend to view punishment as inherently bad and can only accept its use
Instead Utilitarianism judges the morality of punishment by considering the extent to which it deters criminals from committing murder. Punishment should be a deterrence; punishment is intended to cause fear and as such prevent crime. Whilst Utilitarianism is often viewed as less punitive than other theories of punishment it can lead at times to surprising results; because the taking of one life is justified if it prevents the taking of other, innocent lives if judged that the consequence of permitting the criminal to live may result in more murder, then the death penalty would be considered an appropriate punishment in that particular case. At times however, utilitarian views of punishment can lead to there being no need for any sanction whatsoever; if the punishment would not serve any useful purpose (such as deterrence or the prevention of future crime) there is nothing in utilitarianism which views punishment as inherently