Retributive, Utilitarian and Rehabilitative Justice Compared
Retributive, Utilitarian and Rehabilitative Justice Compared
The three justice theories or views, which include utilitarianism, rehabilitative or a retributive style of justice, are multifaceted. It is not easy to sum the aspects of each without lengthy discussion. Therefore, I will try to maximize my efforts and offer concise answers. It is fair to note that my belief system correlates strongly with retributive style justice theory. Nevertheless, I will compare all three theories accordingly. First, I would like to debate the utilitarian theory of justice. Certainly, the assumption would be that a practical approach to justice would produce a sensible result. However, I think that the term utilitarian is misleading because the major focus within this theory is “forward-looking” or placing emphasis on “reform, prevention, and deterrence” (Pojman 119). Of course, to prevent or deter crime is an attractive choice. Yet, I do not agree that prevention or deterrence will be successful. For instance, taunting the public with threats of the death penalty does not seem effective at deterring violent crimes. Then again, you have to implement the penalty to have it work. In a study conducted between 1973 and 1995, and according to extensive research, “only 5 percent of all people who had been given the death penalty since 1973 have been executed” (Butterfield). As a result, this leads me to believe that if the threat of the death penalty is not working, neither is the method of deterrence. Additionally, the idea of reform might supersede the handing down of equal punishment to fit the crime committed. An example of that might be that a focus on rehabilitative measures could fail to execute justice on the victim’s behalf. Is it justifiable to treat the criminal instead of punishing? I am not convinced that it is of the greatest interest in society to disregard the crime by helping only the criminal. As an example, if a man is mentally imbalanced and he commits murder,
The three justice theories or views, which include utilitarianism, rehabilitative or a retributive style of justice, are multifaceted. It is not easy to sum the aspects of each without lengthy discussion. Therefore, I will try to maximize my efforts and offer concise answers. It is fair to note that my belief system correlates strongly with retributive style justice theory. Nevertheless, I will compare all three theories accordingly. First, I would like to debate the utilitarian theory of justice. Certainly, the assumption would be that a practical approach to justice would produce a sensible result. However, I think that the term utilitarian is misleading because the major focus within this theory is “forward-looking” or placing emphasis on “reform, prevention, and deterrence” (Pojman 119). Of course, to prevent or deter crime is an attractive choice. Yet, I do not agree that prevention or deterrence will be successful. For instance, taunting the public with threats of the death penalty does not seem effective at deterring violent crimes. Then again, you have to implement the penalty to have it work. In a study conducted between 1973 and 1995, and according to extensive research, “only 5 percent of all people who had been given the death penalty since 1973 have been executed” (Butterfield). As a result, this leads me to believe that if the threat of the death penalty is not working, neither is the method of deterrence. Additionally, the idea of reform might supersede the handing down of equal punishment to fit the crime committed. An example of that might be that a focus on rehabilitative measures could fail to execute justice on the victim’s behalf. Is it justifiable to treat the criminal instead of punishing? I am not convinced that it is of the greatest interest in society to disregard the crime by helping only the criminal. As an example, if a man is mentally imbalanced and he commits murder,
Cited: Butterfield, Fox. “Death Sentences Being Overturned in 2 of 3 Appeals.” National: The New York Times on The Web 12 June 2000. 3 Apr. 2010. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/061200death-penalty.html CriminalGovernment.com. “Definition of Due Process of Law.” The FCC and Community Radio. 13 Apr. 2010. http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/duproc0.html Pojman, Louis P. Justice. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006. San Diego News Network. “YouTube - John Gardner Arraignment in Chelsea King Case.” You tube 3 Mar. 2010. 13 Apr. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvUpaMWD3oA&NR=1