Utilitarian Philosophy Of Punishment Essay
This assignment will provide an overview of the main justifications for punishment and essentially discuss the moral and political arguments for and against punishment. A constant theme that will run throughout will be the Utilitarian philosophy of punishment. Utilitarianism is forward-looking and therefore seeks to prevent the reoccurrence of crime. This is generally achieved through Deterrence, Rehabilitation and Incapacitation with all too some extent playing a vital role in the criminal justice system. Utilitarianism is the idea that an action should be judged on the benefits that have resulted from the act and that it should be performed in like situations by everyone (Laufer, Adler, and Mueller, 1999). However the idea of performing
…show more content…
what’s beneficial for the greatest number of people could be contested. For instance the debate of who has the moral right to punish or is punishment based on divine laws which are still apparent in contemporary society. Although the Utilitarian philosophy of punishment provides acceptable arguments for punishment, it should not be forgotten there are weaknesses in particular in regards to Incapacitation and whether this reduces recidivism. Furthermore imprisoning may not rehabilitate someone but instead it may escalate situations. For Instance in 2013-2014 self-inflicted deaths in England and Wales have risen to 88% the highest in ten years (BBC News, 2014).The need to reinforce social values is a crucial aspect when it comes to punishing. Most evidently in modern day society political concerns have been raised with misrepresentation of individuals from Black and Minority Ethnicity. Morally the aim of punishment is doing what is best for society as a whole yet it could be argued that this system is about controlling particular groups the so called underclass who are deemed as dangerous and outsiders to society. Indeed the complete eradication of crime will make it difficult for society to function. In terms of employment and economy not only in the job sector but in terms of increasing imprisonment which demands a lot financially. The Utilitarian view does provides security for all to some extent but at the same time fails to understand the importance of the individual and that what is viewed as appropriate to some would almost certainly be interpreted differently by others.
Incapacitation is a fundamental element of the utilitarian philosophy of punishment.
It implies that the objective is to avoid upcoming crimes by excluding an individual from society on a short or long term basis or limiting their physical ability to re-offend (Incapacitation Theory , 2011). Incapacitation provides security as it physically restricts ones capability of committing an offence. It is perhaps the only and most effective way of controlling anarchy by situating criminals together in one location. By placing a criminal in a prison presents the view to the society they have been humiliated and restricted from their everyday freedoms. Significantly it allows for the government to exercise their legitimacy by scaling certain offences this proves and confirms the authority of the state. Due to the psychological impact of imprisonment , punishment becomes a routine for the offender depending on the length of the sentence. Though being imprisoned has significant negatives. For instance the punishment may be justified but however the label of being a criminal remains. Moreover this is apparent in modern society when it comes to systems such as the DBS and Criminal Records Bureau check. The capability to prosper in life is restricted in particular in the fields of education and employment. A statistic showed a staggering 75% of employers have declared that a criminal record should not be disregarded (Forrest, 2015). Therefore punishment in this logic can not be justified. If a released prisoner has no option to enter particular fields then no doubt committing another offence is extremely probable. Incapacitation is indeed about controlling certain groups who pose risk to society. It is indicated that to reduce crime by 1 per cent the prison population has to rise by approximately 15 per cent (Redmayne, 2015). The disadvantage of this is the costs related to imprisonment alongside an overcrowded environment. This makes the task of handling high risk offenders
much more problematic. This form of punishment has further complications thus reducing its right for justifying punishment. Assessing a criminal according to their actions in jail is challenging as their behavior may just be temporary in order for an earlier release. This leads on to an essential factor which perhaps explains the disappointment of prisons. False positives is the misinterpretation of an offender to change or reform for the better. In distinction false negatives is when an ex offender re-offends after being released as they were previously perceived as unlikely to re-offend. The aim after release is to have a deterrent or reformative effect. Surely if this is not achieved then incapacitating an offender does not achieve its intentions of decreasing further incidents of crime.
On the other hand it could be argued who has the right to punish. In a religion-cultural context some parts see forgiveness more acceptable then to punish. The act of good is encouraged by beliefs in the supernatural system and reward. Therefore it is not clear who has the moral right to punish the state or a supernatural being. Although punishment tends to be decided by the ruling class or elected government ,religious understandings have also presented a particular interpretation of crimes. For instance the Lex talionis form of punishment whereby the penalty should resemble the severity of the crime that was committed. This concept has been stated in religious texts such as the Leviticus and Exodus. However this perception has also been followed to the exact with states such as Iran still following the lex talionis approach. Based on this laws also originate from the divine consisting of punishment in the hereafter. The concern arises to who has the legitimate right to punish.
what’s beneficial for the greatest number of people could be contested. For instance the debate of who has the moral right to punish or is punishment based on divine laws which are still apparent in contemporary society. Although the Utilitarian philosophy of punishment provides acceptable arguments for punishment, it should not be forgotten there are weaknesses in particular in regards to Incapacitation and whether this reduces recidivism. Furthermore imprisoning may not rehabilitate someone but instead it may escalate situations. For Instance in 2013-2014 self-inflicted deaths in England and Wales have risen to 88% the highest in ten years (BBC News, 2014).The need to reinforce social values is a crucial aspect when it comes to punishing. Most evidently in modern day society political concerns have been raised with misrepresentation of individuals from Black and Minority Ethnicity. Morally the aim of punishment is doing what is best for society as a whole yet it could be argued that this system is about controlling particular groups the so called underclass who are deemed as dangerous and outsiders to society. Indeed the complete eradication of crime will make it difficult for society to function. In terms of employment and economy not only in the job sector but in terms of increasing imprisonment which demands a lot financially. The Utilitarian view does provides security for all to some extent but at the same time fails to understand the importance of the individual and that what is viewed as appropriate to some would almost certainly be interpreted differently by others.
Incapacitation is a fundamental element of the utilitarian philosophy of punishment.
It implies that the objective is to avoid upcoming crimes by excluding an individual from society on a short or long term basis or limiting their physical ability to re-offend (Incapacitation Theory , 2011). Incapacitation provides security as it physically restricts ones capability of committing an offence. It is perhaps the only and most effective way of controlling anarchy by situating criminals together in one location. By placing a criminal in a prison presents the view to the society they have been humiliated and restricted from their everyday freedoms. Significantly it allows for the government to exercise their legitimacy by scaling certain offences this proves and confirms the authority of the state. Due to the psychological impact of imprisonment , punishment becomes a routine for the offender depending on the length of the sentence. Though being imprisoned has significant negatives. For instance the punishment may be justified but however the label of being a criminal remains. Moreover this is apparent in modern society when it comes to systems such as the DBS and Criminal Records Bureau check. The capability to prosper in life is restricted in particular in the fields of education and employment. A statistic showed a staggering 75% of employers have declared that a criminal record should not be disregarded (Forrest, 2015). Therefore punishment in this logic can not be justified. If a released prisoner has no option to enter particular fields then no doubt committing another offence is extremely probable. Incapacitation is indeed about controlling certain groups who pose risk to society. It is indicated that to reduce crime by 1 per cent the prison population has to rise by approximately 15 per cent (Redmayne, 2015). The disadvantage of this is the costs related to imprisonment alongside an overcrowded environment. This makes the task of handling high risk offenders
much more problematic. This form of punishment has further complications thus reducing its right for justifying punishment. Assessing a criminal according to their actions in jail is challenging as their behavior may just be temporary in order for an earlier release. This leads on to an essential factor which perhaps explains the disappointment of prisons. False positives is the misinterpretation of an offender to change or reform for the better. In distinction false negatives is when an ex offender re-offends after being released as they were previously perceived as unlikely to re-offend. The aim after release is to have a deterrent or reformative effect. Surely if this is not achieved then incapacitating an offender does not achieve its intentions of decreasing further incidents of crime.
On the other hand it could be argued who has the right to punish. In a religion-cultural context some parts see forgiveness more acceptable then to punish. The act of good is encouraged by beliefs in the supernatural system and reward. Therefore it is not clear who has the moral right to punish the state or a supernatural being. Although punishment tends to be decided by the ruling class or elected government ,religious understandings have also presented a particular interpretation of crimes. For instance the Lex talionis form of punishment whereby the penalty should resemble the severity of the crime that was committed. This concept has been stated in religious texts such as the Leviticus and Exodus. However this perception has also been followed to the exact with states such as Iran still following the lex talionis approach. Based on this laws also originate from the divine consisting of punishment in the hereafter. The concern arises to who has the legitimate right to punish.