Pros And Cons Of Legal Punishment

Superior Essays
Taylor Marie Hobson
Instructor Name
Phil-7
December 12, 2016
Legal Punishment
Legal punishment is all arounds us, however the one well known form of legal punishment that is associated with human individuals whether through personal experience, or hearing something on TV, is imprisonment. Legal punishment can be specifically marked as a punishment that follows a specific legal rule, punishments such as the going to prison, corporate punishment, and ultimately the death penalty. Legal punishment, especially the death penalty is important and should be fully supported and actively used to ensure safety, justice and to deter possible crimes in the future.
When it comes to legal punishment there two main arguments that can be brought about, the
…show more content…
When it comes to capital punishment there are a lot of reasons in both arguments mentioned above as to why they support capital punishment as well as multiple reasons these arguments can be questioned. Like in the readings by Ernest Van Den Haag and Hugo Bedau in the book Ethics by author Barbara Mackinnon they both have two separate views on capital punishment, with Earnest Van Den Hagg he is in support of the death penalty and in his writing he points out several points to defend his position on the death penalty. One of his first arguments is that with the death penalty or punishments in general being an option to act as a …show more content…
The concept of Utilitarianism is the concept of which an action is justified if it promotes happiness. In my case legal punishment or even more specific the death penalty is acceptable. With the deterrent argument it is acceptable because it is preventing others from doing harm and discouraging individuals to commit a crime. With the retributivist approach, it is justified because it can bring happiness or at least reassurance to the victims or society, like with my example of child rape that I previously mentioned. Another moral theory to take into consideration is Kantianism, according to csus.edu Kant was for two reasons about punishments and the way it is handled, the first was “People should be punished simply because they have committed crimes, and for no other reason.” And second is “Punishment should be proportionate to the crime” (“Punishment”). With Kantianism it seems that Kant’s two reasons can be categorized under the retributivist argument and not really with the deterrent argument. I think between the two I would pick Kantianism because I agree that punishment should be equal to the crime. I think that both of these theories fit well with legal punishment, I think legal punishment and specifically the death penalty is something that needs to be actively used and executed. Although not perfect I believe that legal punishment is the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Punishment is justified, for a retributivist, solely by the fact that those receiving it deserve it.” For a retributivist the reasoning for killing a criminal would be justified, because they committed an act that makes it acceptable for them to be killed. An eye for an eye is a phrase used with retributive theory. Another theory that also is for capital punishment is the utilitarian theory. For a utilitarian there reasoning for capital punishment is somewhat different. They feel that capital punishment is justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction.…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Classicism was formed when the enlightenment arose and was an innovative response to what was seen as harsh juridical processes at the time. Key figures included: Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria and Thomas Hobbes. Main concepts included that humans are rational creatures with free will therefore crime can be prevented by punishment. Punishment was used to better the society as it would serve as a deterrent to commit crime. It was expressed to be most effective when punishments were swiftly and certainly inflicted, with the severity being proportionate to the crime.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A just sentence would examine the characteristics of a crime to determine the culpability of the offender, and maintain the overall harmony of the harmed group of individuals. In another word, the retributivist argument of a just punishment may sound appealing, but it would destroy the balance of the society as it disregards the Equal Protection of the Fourth Amendment. Meanwhile, the consequentialist approach to hate crime may seen to be against the idea of the tough crime policies, but it somehow protects both the offender and the victim by aiming for the long term effect of deterring future hate crimes. Overall, there are pros and cons in regards to both theories and the statutes they coincided with. However, in my opinion, I would want to see statutes to incorporate the concepts from expressive theory of punishment.…

    • 781 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Correctional Ideology

    • 1878 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Society reasons that the answer for people that break the law is to simply get even with them. The idea being that the punishment should be equivalent to the crime. “Proponents advocate just deserts, which defines justice in terms of fairness and proportionality” (Houghton) There are some issues with retribution. This component consists of punishing the perpetrator only because they feel the need to get revenge. This could be deemed unconstitutional because it could be viewed as cruel and unusual…

    • 1878 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Nathanson who is an abolitionist is going to answer negatively to this whereas Haag response who is retentionists will answer positively. Nathanson believes the death penalty is immoral, he talks about two versions of what he calls equality, as a retributivist, where the punishment must fit the crime committed. The two versions are strict Lex talionis “eye for an eye” or that the punishment must bring about the same harm to the wrongdoer as it did to the victim. Nathanson argues that there are problems with Lex talionis, it suggests punishments that are morally unacceptable. Nathanson believes that punishment does not need to be hundred percent the same, it just needs to inflict the same amount of suffering.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Finally, that the main aim of punishment is to deter rather than to avenge the criminal act of the individuals. This is because a legal system, in order to prevent crime, must apply penalties that are deemed fair and equal in order to offset the potential gain that may be derived from criminal activity (Akers 1999, pp.15-20), linking back to the idea of the ‘social contract’. These conventions define the basis of the theory of Classical Criminology. To provide a context for this criminological theory, street crimes refer to crimes that take occurs in a public space that includes both crimes against the person and crimes against property. Violent crimes can be seen as a subset of street crimes in which the offender threatens or applies force against their…

    • 1479 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Quadrant 2B is defined as ?dignity that humans can acquire or lose through moral or immoral behaviour: humans acquire dignity when they behave well in society, but can also lose it when they behave badly? (ACU, 2016, section. 2.1.3). Capital punishment is considered justified because it gives closure to the victims? families and to society that if someone does something bad then they will have to face the consequences.…

    • 2156 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The strict equality interpretation of retributivist justice or ‘lex talionis’, holds that the offender deserves the amount of punishment equivalent to the moral seriousness of the offense. According to Kant, “The undeserved evil which anyone commits on another is to be regarded as perpetuated on himself.” However, one weakness of this interpretation is that it is often both impossible and impractical for our social institutions to inflict the very same kind of suffering on the offender as he has imposed on others. This can be observed for crimes…

    • 1680 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The four Philosophies of Punishment (1) Retribution: It is a hypothesis of equity that considers proportionate punishment an adequate reaction to wrongdoing. This retribution theory essentially fit the ethical gravity of a wrongdoing committed and, to a lesser degree, the qualities of the guilty party. Furthermore, it is utilized as the premise for discipline which includes compulsory sentencing strategies and sentencing rules frameworks. These disciplines are a social articulation of the individual retaliation the criminal 's casualties feels, reasonably kept to what is best for society all in all. This basically suggests "eye for eye" judgments.…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    pg. 39), then I believe punishment is immoral; yet there are moral arguments for punishment. One moral argument for punishment is that it teaches morality through the use of: “autonomy, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, modelling and reasoning” (Elliott, 2011, pg. 29). Autonomy refers to the need to be one’s self, while intrinsic motivation states “that people will act in certain ways without the reinforcements of punishments and rewards” and extrinsic motivation is behaviour reinforcement; in addition, reasoning and modelling allow for independency to garner morality (Elliott, 2011, pg.…

    • 1341 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays

Related Topics