Conatus: THIRD EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

Utilitarianism includes punishment of offenders only if this provides some benefit to the offender, to society or to both. The criminal here might become better behaved for being punished, or maybe others will be deterred from crime as a result of the punishment. Criminal activity causes unhappiness for its victims, so preventing crime increases happiness. Utilitarians potentially see no limit to the amount of punishment that can be inflicted if this increases general happiness. They may also justify punishing an innocent person. But we might ask: Is it reasonable that any amount of suffering may be justified as long as the over all amount of general happiness is increased?

Retribution, by contrast, might see no gain in happiness. There is however a case for claiming that there is a gain in happiness for those who are avenged.

Kant was a retributist. For him, if the guilty are not punished, then justice is not served. People should be punished because they have committed crimes and for no other reason. He saw rehabilitation of criminals as using people as a means to an end. Kant saw punishment of crimes as treating people as rational beings who are responsible for their actions. Thus, punishing them treats them as ends, not as means. Rehabilitation, meanwhile, attempts to mould people into what society thinks they should be rather than leaving them free to be their own person. Also Kant thought the punishment should be proportionate to the crime and therefore only the death penalty is appropriate for murder. The type of punishment

198