The United States of America has the highest rate of people incarcerated compared to the rest of the world, but do most people who are incarcerated deserve that form of punishment? The two forms (ideas) of legal punishment that will be discussed are the Retributive theory of punishment and the Utilitarian theory of punishment, which are quite different when it comes the type of punishment’s that should be enforced on people who commit a crime. The following paragraphs will first define (explain) what the two theories are, followed by possible objections and replies to both theories. Finally I will argue why I think that the Utilitarian theory of punishment is the more plausible form of punishment.
The Retributive theory of punishment …show more content…
The reason I think this reply is stronger is because it defends the point that was raised in the objection right on the head. It was straight to the point, and in my opinion used a better quote, which makes this reply superior to the first one.
Now I move on to the first objection to the Utilitarian Theory of Punishment, where the overall goal is to punish people who did a wrong, but doing so in a way that does not inflict unnecessary harm. The goal is to deter them from doing anything wrong again. That being said the first possible objection might be that a person committed a crime and they were put in prison for some time with the goal to deter him from doing it again, but what if they did not learn from there mistakes and did it again. What would they do if they just keep punishing them and they didn’t learn from their mistakes?
The reply to this might be that each time they were caught doing a crime to punish them more severely so they wont want to do it again this passage from one of the readings “…not only because the greater disutility justifies the use of heavier penalties in order to prevent them” (Brandt, 317). They would just make the punishment hard enough so they would not do it again. As well as punish them for the other crimes they had committed and had not been caught for because they should not be let off the hook for a past wrong they did. In order to keep control and enforce something they have to be hard in this
The Retributive theory of punishment …show more content…
The reason I think this reply is stronger is because it defends the point that was raised in the objection right on the head. It was straight to the point, and in my opinion used a better quote, which makes this reply superior to the first one.
Now I move on to the first objection to the Utilitarian Theory of Punishment, where the overall goal is to punish people who did a wrong, but doing so in a way that does not inflict unnecessary harm. The goal is to deter them from doing anything wrong again. That being said the first possible objection might be that a person committed a crime and they were put in prison for some time with the goal to deter him from doing it again, but what if they did not learn from there mistakes and did it again. What would they do if they just keep punishing them and they didn’t learn from their mistakes?
The reply to this might be that each time they were caught doing a crime to punish them more severely so they wont want to do it again this passage from one of the readings “…not only because the greater disutility justifies the use of heavier penalties in order to prevent them” (Brandt, 317). They would just make the punishment hard enough so they would not do it again. As well as punish them for the other crimes they had committed and had not been caught for because they should not be let off the hook for a past wrong they did. In order to keep control and enforce something they have to be hard in this