Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
-
Upload
abhinav-singh-negi -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
1/26
PROJECT ASSIGNMENT: JURISPRUDENCE I
UTILITARIAN AND KANTIAN
CONCEPT OF PUNISHMENT
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
2/26
SUBMITTED BY: AMIT AGRAWAL
ID. NO.: BLIL 1147
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 18th November 2003.
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE.
Table of Contents
S. No. ContentPage
No.1. Introduction 3.
2. Research Methodology 4.
3. Chapter 1: Utility of Punishment 6.
2
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
3/26
4.Chapter 2: Retributive Justice And
Legitimacy10.
5.Chapter 3: Can Capital Punishment Be
Justified13
6. Chapter 4: Finding A Middle Way 15.
7. Conclusion 17.
8. Bibliography 18.
3
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
4/26
Introduction
Punishment entails the intentional infliction of pain or some type of deprivation in an
institutionalized form that individuals would generally prefer to avoid. This requires
justification to be morally acceptable. Attempts to provide justification for infliction of
punishment are made by various punishment theories.
Punishment theories generally can be separated into a handful of philosophical camps
consequentialist theories, non-consequentialist theories, and mixed (or hybrid) theories
that contain both consequentialist and non-consequentialist elements. What distinguishesthese theories is their focus and goals: Consequentialist theories are forward-looking,
concerned with the future consequences of punishment; non-consequentialist theories are
backward-looking, interested solely in past acts and mental states; and mixed theories are
both forward- and backward-looking, with each hybrid placing a different emphasis on
culpable past conduct versus future consequences.
The present paper will briefly examine the two dominant consequentialist and non-
consequentialist theories of criminal punishment--utilitarianism and retributivism,
respectively--as well as leading hybrid theories. In between using the utilitarian and
Kantian arguments fallacy of death penalty has also been explored.
4
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
5/26
Research Methodology
Aims and objectives:
Present paper attempts to sketch the significance of two seemingly opposing justifications
of punishment.
Scope and Limitations:
Scope of the present paper is to conceptualise and to analyse the utilitarian and the
retributive penologies. In the present paper while discussing the utilitarian approach,
Bemthams conception of the punishment is focussed upon.
Research Questions:
I have attempted to answer the following questions in the present paper:
When ought (should) a person be punished?
When can a person be punished?
How can death penalty be justified?
Can both the theories be reconciled?
Chapterisation:
First chapter, as is evident by the title, aim to bring into light the utilitarian approach of
the punishment.Second chapter has dealt with the retributive account of justification of punishment
Third chapter focuses upon the issue of moral justification of death penalty.
Fourth chapter has dealt with hybrid theories that essentially try to reconcile both the
approaches.
5
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
6/26
Style of Writing:
This paper has largely descriptive style of writing. Wherever necessary the researcher has
analysed and criticized the various aspects also.
Mode of Citation:
A uniform mode of citation is followed throughout the project.
Articles in the present paper have been cited in the following manner:
Name of the Author, Name of the article, Vol. No. (Issue No.-if applicable) Nameof
the JournalPage no. (starting) (Year of Publication), Page No. (May Not be applicable
for certain articles taken from websites).
Books in the present paper have been cited in this manner:
Name of the author (or Editor), Title of the Book, (Publishing Co.: Place of Publication,
Edition (if applicable), Year), Vol. No.(if applicable), Page No..
Sources of Data:
Mainly secondary sources of data such as articles, books and electronic resources have
been used to answer the various research questions.
6
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
7/26
Utility of Punishment
Utilitarianism is mostly associated with the name of Jeremy Bentham. Although he was
not the first thinker to employ utility or the greatest happiness principle as the standard
for right and wrong, he is nonetheless, widely regarded as the founder of modern
utilitarianism. Bentham presented his ethical theory of utilitarianism in his book, An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation1, published in 1789. This book
was essentially written as a prelude to a penal code that he intended to draw up. Thus, it
must be kept in mind that Bentham's philosophy was accompanied by his active role as a
reformer.
His An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation begins with the words:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine
what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain
of cause and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we
say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection will serve but to
demonstrate and confirm it.... The principle of utility recognizes this subjection, and
assumes it for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of
felicity by the hands of reason and of law...2
He then goes on, By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or
disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to
have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question....3
Elaborating further, he identifies happiness with pleasure and unhappiness with pain.
This theory is viewed as a consequentialist theory where the actions are justified or
condemned by their tendency to have consequences that are pleasurable or painful. Its
ultimate foundation, thus, is the thesis that no actions are intrinsically right or wrong-it is
1 Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals andLegislations, (H.L.A. Hart, et.al., eds., Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996).2Id., p.11.3Ibid., pp.11-12.
7
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
8/26
only their consequence with regard to the pain and the pleasure, which gives them the
moral status of being wrong or right.4
This view requires a moral obligation on the part every individual to promote the pleasure
of all who are affected by his or her acts equally. But the question arises: How can a
social order whose individual members are all egoists get those individuals to act
altruistically? Bentham's solution to this practical social problem is his theory of
sanctions whereby he proposes since individuals will perform antisocial acts whenever
their doing so will promote their own pleasure, such activity must be discouraged by
making its consequences painful to the agent.5
Bentham believed that every crime produced two evils i.e. the primary evil, which
consists of the actual commission of offence and the secondary evil, which consists of the
consequences that the criminal act has on society. For example in a case of murder, the
loss of life of the particular individual is primary evil and the general degradation of
respect for life and the fear that the murder had caused of insecurity among the people is
secondary evil. He says that it is the secondary evil that has more disastrous
consequences than the primary evil.6
Bentham treats the offence committed as an act of past. Therefore he advocates of using
this opportunity of punishing the offender in such a manner that the future offences could
be prevented.7 In his view if an offence has been committed as an isolated fact and there
is no possibility that any thing likely would ever recur, punishment in such situations
would be useless.8
Bentham looked at punishment as an evil as it increased the pain in the community and
therefore believed that it has to be carefully calculated so that the end result does not
4 I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment: Benatham, in, G J Posternal (ed.),Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.:
Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p. 331.5 See, http://philosophy.fullcoll.edu/res/profiles/bentham.pdf, visited on 11th
Nov. 2003.6 W Morrison, Jurisprudence: From The Greeks To Post Modern, (CavendishPublishing Ltd.: London, 1997), p.192.7 I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment: Benatham, in, G J Posternal (ed.),Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.:Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p.333.8Id.
8
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
9/26
increase the pain of the community. He writes, upon the principle of utility, if it ought at
all to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil9
As noted earlier, prevention of offenses, in Benthams view, is the immediate and most
important end of punishment. Bentham believes in deterring the potential offenders from
violating the law by showing them the frightening example of the evil of the
punishment.10 Other ends of utilitarian punishment are special deterrence, incapacitation
and rehabilitation.11 In addition to the prevention of future offences, which is its chief
objective, punishment, in view of Bentham can also give satisfaction which can be of two
kinds: material compensation and vindictive satisfaction. To do away with the bad
consequences of the offenses, which have affected the victim, punishment can be made to
serve as material compensation in certain circumstances. With regard to vindictive
satisfaction, any pain or any evil inflicted on the offender can be a source of such
satisfaction, first for the victim, and then for all those who have felt anger due to the
commission of the offense and want the offender to be punished. Therefore while
determining the punishment what must be kept in the mind are not only the aims of
prevention but also of satisfaction. However this refers only to such modifications of
9 Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislations, (H.L.A. Hart, et.al., eds., Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996), p. 158.10 This view of Bentham assumes a rational pre-calculation on the part ofcriminal of the consequences of his acts. It doesnt take into account theirrational factors in criminal behaviour such as passion ...etc. Bentham inresponse says, like the most of these very general and oracular propositions,it is not true. When maters of such importance as pain and pleasure are atstake, and these in the highest degree (the only matters, in short, that can beof importance) who is there that does not calculate? Men calculate, somewith less exactness, indeed, some with more: but all men calculate. I wouldnot say, that even a madman does not calculate. Passion calculates, more orless, in every man Quoted from, I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment:Benatham, in, G J Posternal (ed.), Bentahm : Moral political And Legal
Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.: Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p.335.11 Special deterrence refers to the deterrence of the wrongdoer himself.Incapacitation has to do with using the punishment to limit the opportunity ofthe offender to commit future offences. Imprisonment is the most commonform of the incapacitation. The aim of rehabilitation is to change the moralcharacter of a wrongdoer so that it is not necessary to threaten the offenderwith punishment in order for him to obey the law. See, A Altman, Arguing
About Law-An Introduction To Legal Philosophy, (Wadsworth Pub. Co.:Stamford, 2nd Ed., 2001), p.137.
9
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
10/26
punishment, which do not aggravate the punishment over and above what is required of
prevention aims.12
All these utilitarian aims for punishment have one crucial feature in common. They
involve inflicting pain now on the wrongdoer so as to prevent greater pain from being
inflicted on the society in the future.13
Since Bentham always stressed on confining punishment to essential areas, in An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he discusses four areas where it
would not be useful to inflict punishment. First, when it is groundless- where there is no
mischief to prevent. Also the punishment is groundless when a harmful action was
necessary for preventing a greater evil. Second, when it inefficacious- in that the
punishment could not have stopped the commission of a crime- retrospective laws and
punishments to minors, drunkards, insane offenders fall into this category. Thirdly, when
the punishment would be unprofitable- in that the mischief that would flow from the
punishment would be greater then the one it sought to prevent. This would be a case
where punishing the offender would cause great pain to the public at large. Finally, where
the punishment is needless, in that the crime could be prevented or would cease even
without the punishment by other, non-punitive means such as various measures of social
policy and education.14
For Bentham no punishment can be granted if there are no utilitarian grounds to do so. At
the same time he advocates for the punishment of any one if it is in conformity with
utilitarian philosophy. For him it does not matter whether the person on whom
punishment is sought is actually guilty or nor. By this he even proposes to punish an
innocent as long as there are prudent reasons to do so.15
12 I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment: Benatham, in, G J Posternal (ed.),Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.:
Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p.335-336.13 A Altman, Arguing About Law-An Introduction To Legal Philosophy,(Wadsworth Pub. Co.: Stamford, 2nd edition, 2001), p.137.14 See generally- Jeremy Bentham,An Introduction to the Principles of Moralsand Legislations, (H.L.A. Hart, et.al., eds., Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996), p.158-164.15 This is evident from the following:But so it be on account of some act that has been done, it matters not bywhom the act was done. The most common sense case is for the act to have
10
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
11/26
This is the most controversial issue with which the researcher is also in disagreement
with as various other academicians are. In the opinion of the researcher punishing an
innocent might have utility as a short-term goal. But the researcher is unable to
understand as to how the utilitarian philosophy that purports to provide a standard or
measure for inflicting the punishment to the state can ignore the very fact that once it
becomes public knowledge that state can frame even an innocent to avoid another evil
(which would cause greater pain), the very institution in which Bentahm was trying to
bring reforms would loose its legitimacy. People will wonder whether the same fate
wont at any time fall on them. If one tries to imagine how such an institution would
actually work, it seems clear that it would serve no useful purpose.16
Take an example from recent Gujarat genocide episode. It is a universal fact that what
had happened in Godhara was the immediate cause of the widespread riots. This was also
within contemplation of state that the incident might spark a large-scale violence.
Therefore had they arrested thirteen or fourteen innocent people on the eve of the
Godhara incident and had started proceedings against them, alleging them to be the real
culprtits, probably thousands of other innocent lives would have been saved. But it is the
humble submission of the researcher that once it becomes public knowledge that the state
can go even to the extent of framing innocent because of no fault of theirs, the belief of
large populace of the state being their protector would have vanished. This in
consequence would have given birth to the feeling of insecurity, which will in no way can
be said to have increased aggregate welfare or pleasure for the people.
been done by the same person by whom the evil issuffered. But the evil maylight upon a different person, and still bear the name of punishment. In sucha case it may be styled punishment in alienam personam, in contradistinctionto the more common case in which it may be styled punishment in propriam
personam. Quoted in, I Promoratz, p 338.16 Similar views were expressed by Robert Goodin where he expresses Once
it becomes public knowledge that, as a matter of policy, we are willing tohang innocent people to assuage a baying mob . . . then everyone startsworrying: Who will be next? The anxieties associated with such thoughtssystematically occurring across the whole population will more than suffice tocancel the utility advantages of . . .throwing one prisoner to the mob on anygiven occasion Quoted from, G Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral orPolitical? 5 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 321, available at,http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/5(2)/Binder.pdf, visited on 10th
Nov. 2003.
11
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
12/26
As far as the measurement of the punishment is concerned Bentham suggests that a
punishment must not be less severe than what is required to outweigh the benefit secured
by the offence. It is also suggested that punishment should not be more severe than what
is required to attain its purposes.17
17 I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment: Benatham, in, G J Posternal (ed.),Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.:Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, pp. 341-342.
12
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
13/26
Retributive Justice And Legitimacy
The retributive view of punishment is normally taken to be non-consequentialist;
whereby, the appropriateness of punishment depends on the nature of the act that has
been committed, not on the consequences of punishment.
Contemporary retributivism traces its lineage to Kant, who discussed punishment
briefly in the course of laying out his theory of justice in the first half ofThe Metaphysics
of Morals.18 For Kant, just actions are a subset of moral actions, so that legitimate
punishment must satisfy the dictates of both morality and justice.19 In opposition to
utilitarian approach that justifies punishment in terms of its beneficial consequences,
retributivism claims that punishment can be given solely on the basis of criminal guilt.
Kant believed that guilt is a sufficient condition for justifying punishment. His famous
passage is worth quoting:
Even if a civil society were to dissolve itself by common agreement of all its
members (for example, if the people inhabiting an island decided to separate and disperse
themselves around the world), the last murderer remaining in the prison must be
executed, so that every one will duly receive what his actions are worth and so that the
bloodguilt thereof will not be fixed on the people because they failed to insist on carrying
out the punishment; for if they fail to do so, they may be regarded as accomplices in this
public violation of justice.20
This theory clearly holds that criminal guilt deserves punishment and non-
criminal people have a moral duty to inflict the same. This theory is based upon the
18 See, G Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral or Political? 5 Buffalo CriminalLaw Review 321, available at,http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/5(2)/Binder.pdf, visited on 10th
Nov. 2003.19 See, Id.20 Quoted from, J G Murphy, Retribution, Justice and Therapy Essays in
philosophy of Law, (D Reidel Pub. Co.: Holland, 1979), p.82.
13
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
14/26
concept of reciprocity. This implies that in order to enjoy the benefits of a legal system,
each man must make certain sacrifices, which is to obey the law irrespective of personal
liking. This claim is demanded by a general theory of political obligation. In Kants view
if the law is to remain just, it is essential that those who disobey it dont get any unfair
advantage over the people who obey it voluntarily. In his view the criminal himself
would have no complaint when punishment is inflicted upon to him because he had
rationally consented to his punishment. Kant here seems to have used the Rawlsian
concept of original position to derive the consent of criminal. He says that the rules
which criminal had broken were obeyed by other people for his benefit. And since he
derives benefit out of the obedience of other people of those rules, he owes a debt to other
people in the form of his own obedience. And if the deviant doesnt exercise the self-
restraint and obedience, he has to pay the debt in the form of paying the penalty.21
This analysis treats punishment as a debt; therefore once it is paid it calls for re-
entry of the criminal into the community.
Kant was against the utilitarian philosophy of using punishment as a means to general
good.22 He acknowledged that morality requires us to treat each human being as an end in
himself. Kant proposed justice, rather than morality, as the standard of assessing the
punishment.23 To continue with the description of the retributive conception of fairness,
another question that arises for consideration is: if a person has done wrong and deserves
21Ibid., pp.83-84.22 In a widely quoted passage, he objected to what he imagined to be theimplications of utilitarianism for punishment: Judicial punishment can neverbe used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminalhimself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on himonly on the ground that he has committed a crime; for a human being cannever be manipulated merely as a means to the purposes of someone else
and can never be included among objects of the law of things. His innatePersonality protects him against such treatment, even though he may indeedby condemned to forfeit his civil Personality. He must first be found deservingof punishment before any consideration is given to the utility of thispunishment for himself or for his fellow citizens. Quoted from, G Binder,Punishment Theory: Moral or Political? 5 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 321,available at, http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/5(2)/Binder.pdf,visited on 10th Nov. 2003.23Id.
14
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
15/26
punishment, how much punishment should be meted out? As answer to this question
Kants theory is claimed to have propounded the principle of lex talionis, which implies
of return like for like.24 Kants favourite example of this is the penalty of death for the
crime of murder.25 This is the most criticized aspect of the retributivism. Firstly, because
in every case punishment on the basis of like for like cannot be given. 26 To illustrate:
what punishment should be given to a rapist. In that case another explanation that is given
is retributivism demands proportionality, not equation.27
Another problem that arises when dealing with this notion of proportionality is
that how to decide or assess the degree of wrongfulness. To illustrate: how can one
decide whether to have succeeded in beating someone up is worse than to have shot to
kill but to have missed? The reason is that there is no natural metric that allows to
translate the harm into the punishment. If the harm is theft or treason, how can this be
translated into a jail sentence under lex talionis?28 Due to this it is also said that there can
be no just punishment for any crime.29
Another criticism of this theory is that retribution makes good sense only in those
communities where it consists of responsible individuals of approximate equality. In the
24 Lex talionis was endorsed by Kant: [W]hat amount of punishment is it thatpublic justice makes its principle and measure? None other than the principleof equality . . . Accordingly, whatever undeserved evil you inflict uponanother . . that you inflict upon yourself. . . . [O]nly the Law of retribution(ius talionis) . . . can specify definitely the quality and the quantity ofpunishment . . . ., See,http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/book/06lawEnforcement.pdf, visited on 11th Nov. 2003.25
J G Murphy, Retribution, Justice and Therapy Essays in philosophy of Law ,(D Reidel Pub. Co.: Holland, 1979), p.85.26Id.27 W Saudurski, Giving Desert Its Due-Social Justice And Legal Theory, (DReidel Publishing Co.: Holland, 1985), p.237.28 http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/book/06lawEnforcement.pdf, visited on 11th Nov. 2003.29 W Saudurski, Giving Desert Its Due-Social Justice And Legal Theory, (DReidel Publishing Co.: Holland, 1985), p.238.
15
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
16/26
present human societies many people neither benefit nor participate in the society due
inbuilt disadvantages.30
One of the other characteristics of retributivism is that punishment must be imposed
systemically and equally on all similarly situated actors. According to Kant justice is a
value that inheres in regularity and systematicity.31
In the opinion of the researcher the approach of retribution, which is essentially a
backward looking approach, of treating violence with violence is not a humanistic
approach. Another criticism in the opinion of the researcher which is shared by various
academicians is that this theory calls for infliction of the punishment on the basis of the
harm inflicted which in all circumstances can not be said to be a right approach. This
view doesnt take into consideration various factors behind commission of the crime.
Reasons for delinquent behaviour of a person maybe his disadvantaged position in the
society or parental influence or many other such factors.
Another criticism in the opinion of the researcher of this theory is that it might be in
contradistinction with utilitarian approach in some areas but it is not totally devoid of the
utilitarian philosophy as it pretends to be. It is submitted that the very notion of giving
criminals their due desert acts as means to maintain order in the society which is nothing
but promotion of pleasure of society as viewed by Bentham.
30 J G Murphy, Retribution, Justice and Therapy Essays in philosophy of Law ,(D Reidel Pub. Co.: Holland, 1979), p. 79.31 It is explained by Jeffrie Murphy as follows, [i]t is a necessary truth aboutthe institutional rules
prescribing punishment, and not merely a moral observation about them,that they should be justlyenforcedthat like cases be treated alike. For only in this way can law attainits primary social function: the control of social behavior through rules. . . .
These rules can perform their socials function only if coupled with a justlyenforced system of authoritative punishment. See, G Binder, Punishment
Theory: Moral or Political? 5 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 321, available at,http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/5(2)/Binder.pdf, visited on 10th
Nov. 2003.
16
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
17/26
Can Capital Punishment Be Justified
After having given account of essential characteristics of major justifications of
punishment, the researcher in this chapter using the arguments advanced in the preceding
chapters would attempt to establish that death penalty in general can not be justified
morally by either of the approaches.
Taking the retributive perspective first which seems to suggest that if a person has
committed murder, he himself has called for death penalty as repayment of debt. This
view is also supported by the lex talionis principle where Kant himself had called
imposition death penalty for the crime of murder. But it is humbly submitted that the
meaning oflex talionis itself is very ambiguous. Up till today scholars arent very clear
Kant by using the above-mentioned particular phrase called for punishment in the form of
like for like or it merely suggested that punishment for an offence must be given with
reference to its gravity. Even if it is assumed for the argument sake that Kant called for
punishment in the form of like for like, just because death penalty is a fit penalty for the
crime of murder doesnt make its execution. As mentioned earlier one of the essential
characteristics of the retributivism is that similarly placed actors must be punished
equally. This clearly suggests that if a punishment cannot be inflicted equally on all
offenders it is not just. If lex talionis is interpreted as to propound proportionality
principle then it must be noted that the range of punishments is very limited however the
range of crimes seem to be infinite. Therefore if at all death penalty, which is the ultimate
penalty has to be given, it must be reserved for the ultimate crime, 32 which in the opinion
of the researcher murder does not qualify for. In the opinion of the researcher death
penalty can be justified only in the cases genocide.
32 The argument is borrowed from E V Haag, In defense of Death Penalty: APractical and Moral Analysis, in J Feinberg, et.al., (ed.), Philosophy of Law,(Wadsworth Pub. Co.: Stamford, 6th edition, 2000), p.838.
17
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
18/26
As far as utilitarian arguments are concerned the researcher using three properties of
punishment would show that the death penalty is not desirable by utilitarians as well.
According to Bentham each punishment has a real value and an apparent value.
Real value consists of amount of pain, suffering which was in fact inflicted on the person
punished. Apparent value is that which the real value has impression of in the minds of
others. Now it is the apparent value, which satisfies the aims of punishment. It is actually
the real expense at the expense of which the apparent punishment gives profit.33 It is
argued that the people who are attached to life by the ties of reputation, affection etc fear
of death penalty more than of any other imprisonment. Benthams central argument of
this is that perpetual imprisonment with suitable aggravations can be made to be more
terrifying than the threat of death.34
Another property of utilitarian punishment is popularity, which essentially means that a
punishment must not be unpopular which would cause unnecessary suffering on the
offender. In Benthams opinion once it is understood that the death penalty is not the
deterrent or preventive, its popularity would soon vanish.35 Today there are many a
reports which suggest that there exists no rational nexus between the imposition of the
death penalty and a subsequent decrease in the rate of capital offences. Consequently, the
deterrent effect of the death penalty is doubtful36
Third property of punishment extends the strongest argument against the death penalty
that is that evil inflicted by punishment ought not to be completely irreparable.
Punishment ought to be remissible, so that in cases where it is found that the punishment
33 H A Beadu, Benthams Utilitarian Critique of The Death Penalty, in, G JPosternal (ed.), Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgate
publishing Co.: Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p.376.34 Id.; See also, I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment: Benatham, in, G JPosternal (ed.), Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgatepublishing Co.: Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p.342.35 H A Beadu, Benthams Utilitarian Critique of The Death Penalty, in, G JPosternal (ed.), Bentahm : Moral political And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgatepublishing Co.: Burlington, 2002), Vol. II, p.375.36 R Hood, The Death Penalty A Worldwide Perspective, (OUP: USA, 2nd edition,1996), pp.187-190.
18
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
19/26
has been given by mistake, it can be remitted, or compensated for. In case of death
penalty there is absolutely no scope to compensate the wrongly executed person.
For all these reasons, the researcher feels that death penalty can be defended morally
neither by utilitarian nor by retributive theories.
19
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
20/26
Finding A Middle Way
As is evident from last chapters that philosophy of punishment is marked by two
irreconcilable approaches. One looks at past to justify punishment and the other at
future to do the same. However there have been philosophers who believed that
both the theories of punishment apart from their inherent difficulties have an
important contribution to make- that each has grasped a part of truth about the
moral basis of the punishment. They have held that one should try for a synthesis,
which would avoid the outright mistakes of both and would incorporate important
aspects contained in both the theories.37
Rule-Utilitarianism
Rule- utilitarian theory of punishment attempts to bridge the gap between utilitarianism
and retributivism by providing a synthesis which is basically utilitarian, but makes room
for considerations of justice and desert as well. 38 The classic formulation of this theory is
presented by John Rawls whereby he makes distinction between the roles of legislator
and that of a judge.
One can say, then, that the judge and legislator stand in different positions and look in
different directions: one to the past, the other to the future. The justification of what the
judge does, qua judge, sounds like the retributive view; the justification of what the
(ideal) legislator does, qua legislator, sounds like the utilitarian view. Thus both views
have a point (this is as it should be since intelligent and sensitive persons have been on
both sides of argument); and ones initial confusion disappears once one sees that these
37 I Primoratz, The Middle Way in The Philosophy of Punishment, in RGavison (ed.), Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy-The Influence of H L
A Hart, (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1989), p.194.38Ibid., p.201.
20
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
21/26
views apply to persons holding different offices with different duties, and situated
differently with respect to the system of rules that make up the criminal law.39
With regard to the punishment of the innocent, the rule-utilitarians argue that
punishment of the innocent can never be really socially useful, because once it becomes
public knowledge that an innocent has been punished, this will undermine the rule broken
and the harm caused by it will be far more than the benefit initially accrued. Another
possibility of argument is that the punishment of the innocent assumes that the judge has
the authority particular cases on utilitarian grounds but this possibility has already been
done away with by the very notion of rules.40
Rawls contends that a utilitarian justification of punishment of the innocent,
which he calls as telishment is most unlikely. This is because in this case the danger of
system being abused would be great. Another reason that he gives is that in a society
where the institution is replaced by telishment, uncertainity of people being telished and
unpredictability of ones own fate would be a high price to pay. This all would be
because of the public knowledge of rules of institutions.41
Rawls is criticised on both the accounts. On the first count, because any system
can be abused by the officials which is not the peculiar case with the institution of
telishment. On the second reasoning he is criticised by saying that the rules of telishment
could be internal rules-known only to the officials of the institution. Hence there would
be no danger of public knowledge and therefore the system woul allow the
punishament/telishment of the innocent. The researcher quite doesnt agree with this
criticism of Rawls because of the simple fact of practicability of such situation.42
H L A Hart
39 Quoted from, S Freeman, (ed.), Collected Papers-John Rawls, (OUP: NewDelhi, 1999), p.21.40 I Primoratz, The Middle Way in The Philosophy of Punishment, in RGavison (ed.), Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy-The Influence of H L
A Hart, (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1989), p.202.41Ibid., p.203.42Id.
21
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
22/26
Harts views on punishment are quite similar to rule-utilitarian. He says that a morally
tolerable theory must exhibit a compromise between distinct and partly conflicting
principles. He suggests that the way to do it is to distinguish the question of general
justifying aim and that of distribution. By general justifying aim he means the
question of justification of the institution of punishment and by the question of
distribution he means: who gets punished and how much?43
In his opinion the question of general justifying aim cannot be answered by retribitivism.
General justifying aim of the institution of punishment has to be general deterrence, in his
view. It is only at the time of distribution that the retributivism has to be considered along
with utilitarianism. He says that the question of liability has to answered purely in
retributive terms i.e. only those can be punished who have violated the law. The amount
of punishment is to be decided upon by the consideration of both. He also advocates of
some proportion between crime and punishment. He disregards disproportionately harsh
punishments not because they are uneconomical but just because they are
disproportionate. He also includes considerations of mitigation in the punishment not
because of any utility but because justice requires considering those who faced
difficulties in obeying the law they have broken.44
These are the main points of Harts theory.
This in the researchers opinion is essentially a utilitarian theory where retributive theory
has been used as a caveat added to it.
Conclusion
Examining the two major theories that have been brought forward by moral philosophers
in the justification of punishment, we find that punishment from the perspective of the
utilitarianism is defended by taking the position that bygones are bygones and that
future consequences should be the sole guide for sanctioning decisions. With this
43Ibid., p.204.44Ibid., pp.204-206.
22
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
23/26
objective in mind, utilitarianism provides an apparently sensible approach to the ends and
means of punishment. But even if it is assumed that utilitarianism could justify the
existence of a criminal justice system, the problem that comes is: how is it possible to
weigh the various costs and benefits of punishment. R A Duff opines, [W]hen we try
seriously to think what this would involve, we will realize that such a utilitarian calculus
is a fantasy.45 The strongest criticisms of utilitarian punishment, is implicit in the
Kantian form of punishment which declares to not to use individuals as means to other
ends but to treat them as ends in themselves. Kantian approach, which is essentially a
backward looking approach emphasize upon the rights of the individual more than
anything else.
If we scrutinise both the theories closely we find that both the theories require the legal
force to be democratically legitimate. Both require law to secure freedom for individual.
Yet both Bentham and Kant require these similar conditions for different reasons.
On applying arguments of both the justifications of punishments it is also found that
death penalty cannot be morally defended by any of these.
Towards the end, hybrid theories come up with a basically utilitarian approach
constrained by retributive principles.
45 See, E Luna, Punishment Theory, Holism, And The Procedural Conceptionof Restorative
Justice, 2003 Utah Law Review 205.
23
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
24/26
Bibliography
Articles:
1. E Luna, Punishment Theory, Holism, And The Procedural
Conception of Restorative Justice, 2003 Utah Law Review
205.
2. G Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral or Political? 5 Buffalo
Criminal Law Review 321, available at,
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/5(2)/Binder.pdf,
visited on 10th Nov. 2003.
3. H A Beadu, Benthams Utilitarian Critique of The Death
Penalty, in, G J Posternal (ed.), Bentahm : Moral political
And Legal Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.: Burlington,
2002), Vol. II, p.366.
4. I Primoratz, The Middle Way in The Philosophy ofPunishment, in R Gavison (ed.), Issues in Contemporary
Legal Philosophy-The Influence of H L A Hart, (Clarendon
Press: Oxford, 1989), p.193.
5. I Primotraz, The Utility of punishment: Benatham, in, G J
Posternal (ed.), Bentahm : Moral political And Legal
Philisophy, (Ashgate publishing Co.: Burlington, 2002), Vol.
II, p.329.
Books:
24
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
25/26
1. A Altman, Arguing About Law-An Introduction To Legal
Philosophy, (Wadsworth Pub. Co.: Stamford, 2nd edition,
2001).2. J Feinberg, et.al., (ed.), Philosophy of Law, (Wadsworth Pub.
Co.: Stamford, 6th edition, 2000).
3. J G Murphy, Retribution, Justice and Therapy Essays in
philosophy of Law, (D Reidel Pub. Co.: Holland, 1979).
4. Jeremy Bentham,An Introduction to the Principles of Morals
and Legislations, (H.L.A. Hart, et.al., eds., Clarendon Press:
Oxford, 1996).
5. R Hood, The Death Penalty A Worldwide Perspective, (OUP:
USA, 2nd edition, 1996).
6. S Freeman, (ed.), Collected Papers-John Rawls, (OUP: New
Delhi, 1999).
7. W Morrison, Jurisprudence: From The Greeks To Post
Modern, (Cavendish Publishing Ltd.: London, 1997).
8. W Saudurski, Giving Desert Its Due-Social Justice And Legal
Theory, (D Reidel Publishing Co.: Holland, 1985).
Miscellaneous:
1. http://philosophy.fullcoll.edu/res/profiles/bentham.pdf,
visited on 11th Nov. 2003.
25
-
7/22/2019 Utilitarian and Kantian Theory of Punishment
26/26
2. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pd
f/book/06lawEnforcement.pdf, visited on 11th Nov. 2003.