Alexander Carroll

Philosophy: Introduction to Ethics

A Look at Utilitarian and Retributivist Punishment: An Argument for Justice
A well looked at and reoccurring topic is the reformation of the
American criminal justice system. Its efficiency, usefulness, and effect are all
things that effect, not just criminals, but society as whole. The two primary
perspectives when looking at criminal punishment that will be addressed in
this paper are rule utilitarianism and classical retributivism.
Rule utilitarianism is the perspective of justice that a seemingly less
justice oriented approach than most seem to think. There are three factors
that a utilitarian should look at when approaching justice: prevention,
deterrence, and rehabilitation. These factors are more focused on the
relevance of justice to society, they are less absolute rules. The first of these
is prevention. Prevention is a justification of punishment that thinks to the
future. Prevention says that a criminal being punished will not commit any
crimes during his punishment period, as well as be less likely to commit
those crimes in the future due to his previous punishment. The second
justification for punishment is deterrence. Deterrence is a very utilitarian
method of thinking, which is the rule of thinking that by punishing one
criminal, you are, in a sense, preventing others from committing that crime
due to the example set forth by the one being punished. The last and most
sound justification is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation looks at criminal justice

from a view that is much more focused on the overall benefit to society. By
rehabilitating the criminal so that they can go back into society and be
productive and law abiding, society is being greatly benefited. The primary
benefits of utilitarianism is that it allows the criminal justice system not only
to deal with criminals, but to bring them back into society better than they
were before they entered their punishments.
Classical retributivism is a much different side of the coin than rule
utilitarianism. Retributivism looks at punishment in the classical sense of
justice: purely for the sake of justice itself. In Edmund Pincoffs article, he
makes an excellent case for this very idea as derived from Kant. Human
dignity is very important in and of itself. It is argued, therefore that just as it
is important to give good fortune to those who have earned it, that it is also
just as important to punish those who have earned it. Pincoff arrives to three
principles for retributivist justice, which is a good parallel to the three
justifications offered for rule utilitarianism. These rules, as stated by Pincoff,
say the following:
1. Punishment is only justified when a crime is committed
2. The punishment must be equal to severity of that which crime
has been committed
3. The criminal should only be punished to the extent that he
deserves
These rules are very to the point. Summed up, then, retributivism is the
belief that a criminal should be punished not to deter others, but because he
has deserved it. Kant says the reason this is justifiable is that the criminal is

taught a lesson buy showing him that the maxim he acted upon, when made
universal, is undesirable, i.e. a contradiction of wills. This, in turn, should
teach the criminal the error of his/her ways. The other upside to this theory is
that there is no over or under punishment for a crime; one will not receive a
harsher punishment purely to stop others from pursuing in the same act.
Lastly, there can be a better choice between retributivism and
utilitarianism which makes a case for a proper justice system. Retributivism
is an excellent contender for an ideologically sound justice system. There are
several reasons that this point can be reached. The first of which is looking at
the justification for the punishment. The justifications for utilitarianism can
often times come across as vague, and lead to an over punishment of the
offender. To encourage over punishment of one individual to prevent others
from acting the same is a very hard argument to make from a moral
standpoint. Imagine, for a second, if this logic were to be applied to other
facets of society: Shall we require every fifth student to take a harder test to
encourage other students to study better? Shall we make every tenth person
work two jobs, therefore encouraging those with only one to work harder?
Should one be fired from his job every time he makes a mistake in order to
discourage other employees from messing up? All of these examples use
very similar logic as the first argument, but when presented in this light they
begin to sound rather silly and unfair. The same can be applied to the
justification of deterrence; it is unfair to punish a criminal simply to send a
message to others. It is not the criminals burden to stop others in society
from acting the same way as he. The second thing to look at is prevention

and rehabilitation. Prevention occurs in retributivist justice, i.e. the criminal

will likely be prevented, at least slightly, from acting again in the future and
will be unable to act while being punished. The biggest fight for
utilitarianism, though, is rehabilitation. The issue with this though, is several
things. The first of which is if rehabilitation is a job of the justice system, then
that would make it morally sound the imprison those who did not commit
crimes, simply because they are deemed unfit for society by others. This is
not a morally sound reason to justify punishment. Another argument to be
made against rehabilitation is that a criminal could be punished indefinitely,
i.e. they are never deemed to be fit to re-enter society. And lastly, the
question is raised of the role of punishment and justice. Is it the job of the
justice system to not only prosecute individuals, but also to fix them? The
greatest argument, however, is the fairness of classical retributivism; it
allows for a punishment completely based upon the crime that is committed,
regardless of outside influencing factors. It is very time cumbersome to
consider all of society when punishing an individual, instead, retributivism
looks at the act committed and offers a fair punishment and insures only
those who are truly guilty are punished. Retributivism puts black, white,
poor, and rich all in the same category. It is a true separator of differences.
Not only this, but it allows those who committed a crime to see the true
implications of their act. This is something that can only be done from a
punishment equal in severity, no more, no less. Therefore, if fairness is the
main quality of justice, and punishment is to make up for the actions of a

criminal, then classical retributivism is the punishment system that ought to

be recognized as a good standard to be looked upon.