Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

It is always wrong to punish the innocent.

Discuss the views of utilitarian and non-utilitarian about whether this is a fundamental or secondary principle. Always go back to the question evaluating if wrong! is fundamental or secondary for either utilitarian and non-utilitarian don"t touch too much on whether it is allowed or not Define utilitarian Utilitarianism can be defined as ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that ma#imi$es the overall %good% of the greatest number of individuals. It is thus a form of consequentialism& meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome and that in the case of the 'ustice system& the punishment meted out should be one that minimises suffering and ma#imises overall happiness. (ule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism

)rom the standpoint of rule utilitarianism )rom the standpoint of act utilitarianism According to *ohn +tuart ,ill *ohn +tuart ,ill proposed Weak Rule utilitarianism& which posits that& although rules should be framed on previous e#amples that benefit society& it is possible& under specific circumstances& to do what produces the greatest happiness and break that rule. *ohn (awls gives a critique of utilitarianism in A Theory of Justice that re'ects the idea that the happiness of two distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. -ne defense of (awl"s criticism can be made by asking the simple question who must figure out the e#act sum of all individuals. happiness/ 0o ob'ectively calculated measure of aggregate happiness is necessary nor useful in this case. 1o doubt the ability 2for someone3 to add up individuals" feelings& is to suggest that there necessarily is someone 2a person& a bunch of persons& or computers3 whose 'ob is to figure out that sum& before a related social decision can be made. If there were such %someone%& the situation would be analogous to a centrally-planned economy& where a few socialist bureaucrats constantly struggle to figure out what and how much goods to produce for the people. Define non-utilitarian

2(eal and imaginary world3 Define and differentiate fundamental and secondary principle )undamental 2the encompassing and most important rule in the school of thought& does not need to be 'ustified3 +econdary2subordinate moral principle is one which has to be 'ustified in terms of another moral principle3

4hat are the conditions for testing whether it is fundamental or secondary/ 5uidelines to evaluate which principle falls under which catergory/ 6tilitarian theory )undamental -violate rights 2makes a mockery of the criminal 'ustice system& will cause unnecessary and dangerous doubts in the faith of public against the system. 0o one will feel protected and when word gets out& catastrophic damages to the reputation of 'ustice system. 7arger foreseen unhappiness when punishing the innocent3 -no way of quantifying the happiness of society at large 2 hard to predict whether a certain crime will anger the masses or cause unrest3 +econdary -morally wrong to punish the innocent if produces best consequences& suffering of one person will ease the suffering of the victim and those affected by the crime& under utilitarian theory& not e#acting a form of punishment on the innocent because of moral grounds is secondary& should only be allowed if it is the best consequence no angry mob and other considerations. -)rom strictly absolutist rule utilitarian perspective& it is not wrong to punish the innocent. +ubscribing to the notion that it is wrong would be on moral grounds and hence secondary -cannot take into account any other factors such a 'ustice and desert& must only look at best consequences 0on-utilitarian theory

[B] Retributivism Under a retributive theory of penal law, a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it. There is no exterior motive such as deterring others from crime or protecting society here the goal is to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his crime. Retributive theory assigns punishment on a proportional basis so that crimes that cause greater harm or are committed with a higher degree of culpability (e.g, intentional versus negligent receive more severe punishment than lesser criminal activity. Regarding retributive theories, !.". Ten states that, #There is no complete agreement about what sorts of theories are retributive except that all such theories try to establish an essential link between punishment and moral wrongdoing$ (%& .!oncepts of desert and 'ustice occupy a central place in most retributive theories( in accordance with the demands of 'ustice, wrongdoers are thought to deserve to suffer, so punishment is 'ustified on the grounds that it gives to wrongdoers what they deserve. )t is instructive to look at the form that a particular retributive theory can take, so we will examine the views of )mmanuel *ant. *ant invokes what he refers to as the #principle of e+uality$ in his discussion of punishment. )f this principle is obeyed, then #the pointer of the scale of 'ustice is made to incline no more to the one side than the other$ (,-. . )f a wrongful act is committed, then the person who has committed it has upset the balance of the scale of 'ustice. /e has inflicted suffering on

another, and therefore rendered himself deserving of suffering. 0o in order to balance the scale of 'ustice, it is necessary to inflict the deserved suffering on him. 1ut it is not permissible to 'ust inflict any type of suffering. *ant states that the act that the person has performed #is to be regarded as perpetrated on himself$ (,-. . This he refers to as the #principle of retaliation

Fundamental: )t is wrong to punish the innocent, punishment is because of the crime committed and to restore balance, should only be administered unto the guilty. 2vidence of guilt makes it fundamental. 0o, for *ant, the 'ustification of punishment is derived from the principle of retaliation, which is grounded in the principle of e+uality. The concepts of desert and 'ustice play a central role in *ant3s theory, and they are applied in a way that rules out the possibility of 'ustifying the punishment of innocents. 0ince an innocent person does not deserve to be punished, a *antian is not committed to punishing an innocent person

0econdary( 4because the main issue is to seek 'ust punishment or any form of deprivation against the perpetrator, punishment meted out for any other purpose would makes its cause secondary to the fundamental theory of retributivism.

[C] Denunciation (Expressive Theor ! The denunciation theory which holds that punishment is 'ustified as a means of expressing society3s condemnation of a crime has both utilitarian and retributive components. Under a utilitarian theory, denunciation is desirable because it educates individuals that the community considers specific conduct improper, channels community anger away from personal vengeance, and serves to maintain social cohesion. Under a retributive theory, denunciation serves to punish the defendant by stigmati5ing him. "er #ood $ebsite: http(66www.iep.utm.edu6punishme6
,ake my stand& elaborate& e#plain& give quotes and evidence. )ind good e#amples of real cases& movies to prove point. )rom 2the utilitarian theory3 wrongness of punishing the innocent people is subordinate as a true utilitarian 6tilitarian fundamental principle is to always do what gives the best consequences& secondary8 subordinate principle is that it is wrong to punish innocent people 2moral grounds3

0on-utilitarian it is a fundamental principle not to harm an innocent. +ubordinate to consider other interests besides retribution& equal division of benefits and disadvantage& punishment for crimes& etc.

9onclude +o is it better if :; guilty go free or : innocent person be punished/ Although in theory& from utilitarian point of view& wrong to punish innocent is fundamentally aligned with utilitarian theory& it is not sensible

T.".0. 0prigge states that if faced with the decision presented in the example, a #sensible utilitarian$ will attach a great deal of weight to the near4certain fact that framing an innocent man would produce a great deal of misery for that man and his family. This consideration would receive such weight because #the prediction of misery7 rests on well confirmed generali5ations$ (89 . :urthermore, the sensible utilitarian will not attach much weight to the possibility that framing the man would stop the riots. This is because this prediction #will be based on a hunch about the character of the riots$ (89 . 0ince well confirmed generali5ations are more reliable than hunches, happiness is most likely to be maximi5ed when individuals give the vast ma'ority of the weight to such well confirmed generali5ations when making moral decisions. Therefore, since the relevant well confirmed generali5ation tells us that at least a few people (the innocent man and his family would be made miserable by the false testimony, the utilitarian would give much weight to this consideration and choose not to bear false witness against an innocent man. 4discuss real situations and imaginary situation with stipulated conditions