Introduction
Fair punishment has long been a subject of dispute among philosophers, politicians, and the general public. However, there is still no consensus on which type of penal system is the most appropriate in terms of effectiveness and ethics. These discussions gave rise to two major theories – utilitarian and retributivist – that have supporters and critics and seem to be the closest to the perfect form of punishment.
Main body
To suggest the best penal system, one should first understand the difference between utilitarian and retributivist theories. The former is based on Cesare Beccaria’s idea that punishment should be a means to “deter offenders and others from wrongdoings” (qt. in Tonry 128). In contrast, retributive justice’s main focus is on the punishment itself, which should be “proportional in severity to the crimes that they have committed” (Brettschneider 149). In brief, while utilitarianism pays attention to the mitigating circumstances and seeks ways to rehabilitate some criminals, retributivism sees punishment as retaliation for the evil inflicted on the victim.
In my opinion, the utilitarian theory is a better form of punishment than the retributivist one as it encourages offenders to improve. Its main purpose is to “reduce the occurrence of criminal offenses” instead of just paying back for the evil done (Lee 6). I believe that many crimes are committed due to difficult life circumstances, and if a criminal repents, it would be wise to help them be useful to society.
Another point to support my opinion is the issue of capital punishment. While retributivism considers it a fair penalty for severe crimes, I see it as a major drawback of the US penalty system. Firstly, there is always a possibility of mistakes that can lead to the death of innocent ones. Secondly, this measure, in general, seems unethical as judges turn into murderers themselves. I do not suggest pardoning severe crimes, but our legislators can make offenders contribute to society by producing goods or repairing things while imprisoned. It would not bring back or pacify the victims, but neither would capital punishment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the utilitarian and retributivist punishment forms seem to be fair in their own way. While utilitarianism does not support severe punishments if the criminal shows potential for improvement, retributive justice demands the offender should always get what they deserve. However, I am convinced that the utilitarian theory has better moral grounds and serves to improve society more effectively than the retributivist one.
Works Cited
Brettschneider, Corey. “A Democratic Theory of Punishment: The Trop Principle.” University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 70, no. 1, 2020, pp. 141-162. Web.
Lee, Hsin-Wen. “Taking Deterrence Seriously: The WideScope Deterrence Theory of Punishment”, Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 2-24. Web.
Tonry, Michael. “Punishment and Human Dignity: Sentencing Principles for Twenty-First-Century America.” Crime and Justice, vol. 47, no. 1, 2018, pp. 119-157. Web.