Utilitarian Theories of Punishment - Essay Example

Philosophy May 11, Introduction Utilitarian theory provides that one should act in a way that produces the best possible result. This theory stems from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills who suggested that any action that provides or promotes happiness is right while actions that lead to unhappiness are considered wrong. This theory relies on some intrinsic value being installed within a person initially in order for these decisions and distinction to be made. The tern utilitarianism was established or became from philosopher Bentham’s test question; ‘What is the use of it,’. Bentham’s’ theory suggests that all pleasures are qualitatively alike; grading them based on values such as intensity, certainty, purity, fruitfulness, length and temporal closeness. While Bentham and Mills were philosophers they were also known as economists and Mills theory expanded on utilitarianism. Mills suggested that pleasure is something that can be quantified and qualified and that those who are aquatinted with both prefer that pleasures are quantified. Explaining this preference involves assuming that humans have a sense of decency within their higher faculties and that this dignity is necessary for happiness and those pleasures which conflict with maintaining this dignity is rejected. Theory’s regarding punishment is usually either retributive or utilitarian (Rawls). Those that are retributive emphasize past actions in consideration of the consequence that much must be paid. Theories that are utilitarian are frequently seen as the opposing position and are often used in consideration of the future. Utilitarian theories of punishment will serve as the focus of this discussion. Utilitarian Theories of Punishment Utilitarian punishment holds the argument that punishment is justified only in incidences which serve to reduce future criminal acts. Deterrence is preferred and has been proven effective in reducing criminal actions in a portion of the population who are never sentenced to complete incapacitation, such as prison as well as stabilizing statistics. This theory comes up against very valid and strong arguments. The unfair use of individuals as a means to an end such as exemplifying through punishment, the possibility of the justifying of punishing innocent individuals, and that utilitarianism justifies the inequitable division or distribution of happiness (Rawls). It is further suggested that Mill’s theory relies on principles of common sense in order to perform three different functions; identify which utilities are relevant in morality, assess and weight these impartially in able to generate a moral decision, and decide on which basis the conduct is morally wrong thus justifying punishment. This goes along with the statement that one who fails their moral duty is justified in being punished. Punishment could be associated with coercive measures that would include legal penalties and actions such as legal strikes and boycotts against what is perceived as morally wrong by a standard of similar group of individuals. Utilitarian theory is one that feels punishment beyond what is necessary for deterrence in unnecessary and un-moral. Punishment should not necessarily be imposed on all things that are considered. Immoral conduct may be seen as deserving of punishment though it may be unpunished in some situations where coercion cannot be applied. Mills standard test for that which is morally wrong includes that the behavior must cause some harm to others and it is asserted that wrong conduct should be coercively prevented and coercive interference. Regardless of whether or not coercion is able to be applied wrong conduct remains wrong conduct. Despite this theory of wrong conduct, it may go unpunished, expediently and legitimately being able to escape punishment. Duties that are considered moral are to avoid behaviors and conduct which would be considered deserving of punishment using coerciveness. Nature itself has placed man under two guiding principles; pleasure and pain. Were it only for them that we should decide what we ought to do those standards of right and wrong become left for interpretation by others based upon their own codes of moral and just behavior (Bentham). Does the utilitarian theory in justifying punishment inflict suffering on the innocent in the use of economic principles? A punishment can be defined as being legally deprived of the normal rights granted to citizens justified by the fact that one has violated rules of law and this has been established in a court of law (Rawls). Utilitarian tend to agree that punishment be reserved only for those in violation of laws, of which these laws should foster and represent the good of society. Only those in violation of these laws should be assigned to our corrections institutions. Officials cannot assign individuals to these institutions based only on the benefit of society. It must also be considered that utilitarian theories could justify too much punishment and could be used to justify cruel and/or unusual punishment. Utilitarian theory is able to recognize that there are consequences of punishment to both the individual and to society. Punishment should be used which deters others from committing the same crimes. This serves as an example to the community and deterrence such as jail or prison that physically prevent an individual from committing another crime for a period of time. This punishment is designed as to be unpleasant enough to deter future criminal acts. Rehabilitation of the offender is another utilitarian principle that is not seen in the retributive theory of punishment that focuses on crime itself; preferring to look at past actions and does not consider possible root causes and exacts punishment based on this view. Utilitarian considers also, what is the best course of action for the greater society of the public; criminal statutes are designed to deter criminal acts. The primary goal is to prevent future criminal acts. It must be considered how great a price should be paid for criminal acts that will effectively deter future criminal acts and often laws that set mandatory minimums or take sentencing decisions away from Judges and juries may exact punishments that are retributive considering past actions rather than concern with future actions. It is difficult to deter many crimes as their specific punishment is unknown by the individual which does not allow for he/she to make the moral decision between actions and consequences. Reducing the Rate of Recidivism Utilitarian punishment is flawed though designed to reduce rates of recidivism in jails and prisons. Punishments should be specified and tailored to the individual rather than mandated rules in order to effectively prevent future criminal acts. In order to prevent recidivism and reduce repeat offenders it is necessary to be forward looking; what are we able to provide accompanying punishment that will instill the ability to choose moral decisions and avoid criminal acts? It must be considered that the individual does not know the consequences of their actions or is incapacitated in a way which prevents them from making decisions which are considered right versus wrong in the standards of civilized society. Preventing and reducing recidivism is possible with a forward-looking approach as it is considered that the individual who committed the criminal act may be incapacitated in some that makes them unaware of their actions. Many factors contribute to this; drug and alcohol abuse, inability to become gainfully employed, little or no education that may prevent them from many of societies ‘right’ choices in behavior, or lack of instilled morals throughout childhood. Often a pattern is followed that was learned during this critical time, and there are other factors that contribute to the individual’s lack of ability to make moral decisions. With utilitarian theory being based on the ‘pain vs. pleasure’ principle it must be recognized that pleasure must be sought in ways which do no harm to other individuals or entities and that pain of many forms can be a consequence of these choices to choose a more hedonistic lifestyle. Utilitarian theory supports incapacitating an individual’s ability to commit futures crimes up to and including the death penalty in some cases. This is against many popular opinions who feel that this punishment is to strong and forceful availing the court system to law and allowances which are not theirs to decide. This could be considered using and justifying an action to act as a deterrent to others. While the offender is in prison, they are unable to further violate society’s moral codes or commit acts decided as criminal. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine who will become repeat offenders and that can make punishment difficult; if it were known the individual would not become a repeat offender incarceration may not be justified in criminal act with no victim. When criminals become repeat offender society no longer feels that the punishment was appropriate or acted as a deterrent to future criminal actions. This is when society begins demanding new statutes and laws that ensure those who are repeat offenders are punished more harshly when considering the likeliness of their future actions. Utilitarian theory is very supporting of rehabilitation theory and programs though data and studies are inconsistent and inconclusive as to whether the programs that are invested in are effective; not in acting as deterrents but instilling those moral values that were lacking in the individual which conform not only to society standard but also to law. Programs offered within the prison and jail systems include mental illness and addiction treatment as well as programs designed to alter criminal thinking. Research has been invested heavily in determining if these programs work though statistics vary greatly and recidivism rates remain similar as those who did not participate in these programs. A very controversial utilitarian theory of punishment is the death penalty. This is considered the ultimate deterrent; reserved for those who have knowingly and willfully committed the most heinous of criminal actions. This deterrent is effective as it impossible for this individual to commit such a criminal act again as they will be given no chance. Many strongly oppose this and feel that life in prison is just as effective and the death penalty is no longer used in many states. This deterrent is not taken lightly; those who have taken the life of another or of many others are usually considered those who are likely to reoffend in a similar fashion. Some of these offenders depending on circumstances may have been sentenced to life imprisonment during a time when this was considered a certain period of time and are now eligible for release. These individuals are most often denied release in parole hearings despite their participation in programs designed to instill knowledge of right and wrong as no one wants to be responsible for the loss of another life. This is the ultimate deterrent. The death penalty becomes controversial as it is questioned whether life imprisonment is just as effective a deterrent. The answer is no as life imprisonment usually allows for appeal of parole after a number of years or eligible for release into society once again. Conclusion Utilitarian punishment has evolved over time as we attempt to develop more effective deterrents that prevent imprisonment in those individuals who are less likely to offend. Often probation or limited access to the outside world is enough of a deterrent to prevent future criminal actions. The loss of one’s driving ability is an effective deterrent in some though our prisons are crowded with individuals whose addictions or alcoholism guided their pain vs. pleasure principle. Deterrents were unable to incapacitate their ability to commit criminal acts which are a harm to the public; deterrents were eventually decided which would ensure their inability to commit criminal acts for a certain time. This incapacitation is thought to be unpleasant enough in most to prevent future criminal acts though this has been shown untrue. It is clear that regardless of the theory of punishment used reform is needed. References Bentham, Jeremy. "Jeremy Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation." Jeremy Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Utilitarianism.com, 1781. Web. 11 May 2013. Rawls, John. "Two Concepts of Rules." Filosofia.Dafist.Unige.it. N.p., 1955. Web. 11 May 2013. Read More