Punishment Vs Utilitarianism

The moral justification for legal punishment finds itself in philosophy through two theories that contrast each other in their complex and thought-provoking ideas: the retributivist theory of punishment (RTP) and the utilitarian theory of punishment (UTP). The RTP focuses on the individual and the crime to justify its proportional punishment. On the other hand, the UTP suggests that maximizing happiness in society is the main goal. The importance of defining legal punishment from just punishment cannot be understated. Legal and non-legal penalties, albeit penalties, do not share the same magnitude as legal punishment. Punishment also occurs privately, such as in homes, and that is not through the courts. There are two types of restrictions on liberty--punishment and non-punishment--and distinguishing the two helps define legal punishment. For example, overnight stays at the Crisis Response Center to save individuals from killing themselves restricts their freedom of movement, but it is in no way a punishment. To administer legal punishment, certain conditions must be met. The punishment must be hard treatment where the …show more content…
Utilitarianism is where the action that maximizes utility is the best course to take. There are two different types of utilitarianism within the theory: act and rule. Act utilitarianism looks at a specific act from an individual and determines whether the best possible results occurred from that individual’s decision. If the best outcome occurred, the act is morally justifiable and therefore no crime committed. However, if other plausible decisions could have been made to maximize the results, then a crime may have been committed. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, skips individual exceptions and looks at whether a rule is followed. A person’s action is morally righteous if they maximize happiness while following the