Assignment 1
Retributivists and utilitarians have fundamentally different ideas of what the goal of punishment should be. These ideas lead to opposite positions on whether courts should offer lesser sentences for criminals who collaborate with police. For example, a defendant is charged with selling $100,000 worth of heroin under their crime boss, who is suspected of distributing half the heroin in the city of Chicago and several murders as well. The prosecutor offers to drop the offender’s charges in exchange for information to convict the crime boss and threatens him with a 20-year-long prison sentences and a $2 million fine if they do not collaborate. I propose that the retributivist would not support this deal and the utilitarian would support it. The retributivist would not support the deal because it is inconsistent with the purpose of …show more content…
The two purposes discussed were to right wrongs (retributivist) and to influence actions (utilitarian). A retributivist individual would not support the deal because they demand that the guilty party be punished for their actions regardless of the consequences. Moreover, a retributivist would be distressed over the thought of using the defendant to gain information and disrespecting their humanity. On the other hand, a utilitarian individual would support the deal because it influences the defendant to provide helpful information to convict a crime boss. Rule utilitarians especially would follow the deal through and avoid criminals losing faith in the prospect of no jail time and thus failing to extract information in similar circumstances. Since society wastes less time, money, and resources in convicting a larger number of criminals if the defendant were to leak information, we should support this deal as the utilitarians Bentham and Rawls likely would to protect society from drug
Retributivists and utilitarians have fundamentally different ideas of what the goal of punishment should be. These ideas lead to opposite positions on whether courts should offer lesser sentences for criminals who collaborate with police. For example, a defendant is charged with selling $100,000 worth of heroin under their crime boss, who is suspected of distributing half the heroin in the city of Chicago and several murders as well. The prosecutor offers to drop the offender’s charges in exchange for information to convict the crime boss and threatens him with a 20-year-long prison sentences and a $2 million fine if they do not collaborate. I propose that the retributivist would not support this deal and the utilitarian would support it. The retributivist would not support the deal because it is inconsistent with the purpose of …show more content…
The two purposes discussed were to right wrongs (retributivist) and to influence actions (utilitarian). A retributivist individual would not support the deal because they demand that the guilty party be punished for their actions regardless of the consequences. Moreover, a retributivist would be distressed over the thought of using the defendant to gain information and disrespecting their humanity. On the other hand, a utilitarian individual would support the deal because it influences the defendant to provide helpful information to convict a crime boss. Rule utilitarians especially would follow the deal through and avoid criminals losing faith in the prospect of no jail time and thus failing to extract information in similar circumstances. Since society wastes less time, money, and resources in convicting a larger number of criminals if the defendant were to leak information, we should support this deal as the utilitarians Bentham and Rawls likely would to protect society from drug