StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

The Retributive Theory of Punishment - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "The Retributive Theory of Punishment" highlights that the individual is wrapped in superstition, egoistic passions, and self-interested goals. Till that time, Kantian Retributive theory may allow capital punishment for anyone found engaged in the anti-civilizing practice or close to it…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER94.6% of users find it useful
The Retributive Theory of Punishment
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "The Retributive Theory of Punishment"

?The Retributive Theory of Punishment This paper will discuss the Marshall’s conception of Retribution and the employment of his specific meaning correlating with the theory of Retributive Theory of Punishment. Marshall’s conception will build a case, within his interpretation of Kantian Ethics, for the abandonment of the Death Penalty. The paper, however, also brings forward the contrary point of view of Leiser who thinks that the Death Penalty is not against the intrinsic human value as discussed by Kant. The paper will develop its own understanding by placing both point of views historically and concludes that Kantian conception can not be taken a-historically, i.e., as an abstract ideal. The difference must be made between the case of Osma Bin Laden, and a murder case occasioned by an instant passion. Death Penalty should be abandoned. However, the time for the idea to get realized would be decided by healthy social conditions. Theories of Punishment In its Hammurabi’s sense the retribution stands for letting punishment fit the crime as eye for an eye, or hand for a hand, or life for a life. There is no place in this conception for replacing the consequence of crime with any thing other than the nature of committed crime. For Utilitarians, however, punishment should look for consequences resulting through the incurring of punishment. The Utilitarians put forward Deterrent and Reformative punishment theories. Deterrent means to punish others in order to deter from committing crime. It may be expressed in a dictum of a judge, “you are not punished for stealing sheep, but in order that sheep may not be stolen (Mackenzie 374).” This theory is oppressive in nature and considers human being as a thing. The Reformative theory of punishment emphasizes on changing the structure and thought of human being, compulsory volunteer service and social services are the examples of this theory. Retribution as connection between Punishment and Guilt Retributive theory of punishment aims to make a return of a man’s deed upon his own head. For Mackenzie, the aim of Retribution is to make it apparent that the evil consequences of his acts are not merely evils to others, but evils in which he is himself involved. Retributive theory therefore emphasizes upon facing the similar consequences as that of the committed crime. Being different from the other two theories, and often interpreted in its literal meaning, the important meanings of this theory remain hidden. The aim of retribution is to make connection between punishment and guilt, that is, to develop a sense of guilt regarding the crime. Retribution as expression of Moral outrage There is an aspect and meaning of retribution that becomes operative in certain situation in order to try to answer the question whether some social phenomenon should be punished because it is violating the moral order of the society? Morality works upon the defined and prevailed conception of human being and the owned world-view, this may include religious position. The retributive theory, understood in its literal sense, may operate to curb the increase of a social phenomenon endangering the social moral order, and thus may operate as a utilitarian principle. For example, the increase of the crime rate in juvenile may trigger an operation against such groups to keep control of social moral order. Popular Instinct Retribution may be seen through the upsurge of popular instinct. In this situation, the need to go deep into the reality, and placing event within discursive world, does not play a role. The popular instincts decide retributively the punishment for the crime. For example, a rape of a female in a village may invoke a popular reaction that results into a strict punishment. In this situation, no other shade of retribution will be looked upon. Purely retributive justification It is difficult to understand the concept pure, as it may mean going back directly to Hammurabi’s literal intention and may mean understanding retribution only in the sense of an eye for an eye and life for a life. In other sense, “pure” may mean to bring forward the spirit of retributive justification. It is accepted that the justice must be placed upon retributive concept. However, the spirit of retribution must be understood always essentially in a specific time, within certain context. For example, William Brennen denounces capital punishment on the ground that it defies the human-ness of a human being. Retribution should invoke the conception of human being understood in a specific time in order to develop a pure conception of justice, as the honorable judge maintains. Marshall’s conception of Retribution Marshall’s conception of Retribution is placed upon the idea of finding the spirit of retribution, instead of following Hammurabi’s conception blindly. Marshall insists that the punishment must not be cruel and unusual. For him, the retribution principle may allow the death penalty, however it is cruel and unusual because it violates the spirit of Eighth Amendment that prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. For Marshall, the death penalty must comport with the basic concept of human dignity as it is defined through the amendment. For Marshall, the popular retribution theory entails that a wrongdoer deserves certain punishment because of his committing of certain crime, is not a valid position. This position negates the human dignity of the wrong-doer. For Marshall, death penalty is an unnecessary promotion of the goal of deterrence and it is not a legitimate notion of retribution. Marshall’s Concept of Desert For Marshall, the deserving must entail the conception of human dignity. The wrong-doing does not mean that the wrong-doer is now not a human being and therefore must be treated like an animal or any other nonliving beings. The human dignity must remain entailed even by the wrongdoer and the retribution must be interpreted within the context of the already developed constitution. Kant’s conception of a person Kant’s philosophical exposition provided special status to human being in the universe of living world. For Kant, the human being is special because of his/her capacity to have and generate rationality, and place his/her all actions upon rational will. Kant’s epistemology provides a synthetic conception of facticity and the ingrained structure of reason in human being, in a universal fashion. The ability to form a conception of reality is not a specialized ability for the selected human beings, rather a universal ability, i.e., whenever there is a human being, it has the gift of internally structured categories of reason. Rationality however without senses remains blind, and senses without reason remain meaningless. Rationality therefore has the potential to move in contrary form, antinomy. Yet, a moral action requires from a self-responsible rational being to develop a law-like moral maxim and then act accordingly, instead of moving upon passions. It is through moving upon categorical imperative, as Kant termed the law-like moral maxim, a person finds his/her true autonomy. Incompatibility of Death Penalty with the Kant’s Ethics For Marshall, the capital punishment of the Death Penalty is against the Kantian ethics that remains the basis of the Western civilization. The Kantian Ethics gives human being special status and worth within the living or non-living world. The special worth of human being comes through its ability to be autonomous, and place all its activity through law-like rational and moral principles. To waste this special being is a crime for Kant. Marshal interprets Kantian Ethics through its idealism. However, there is another way of seeing Kantian Ethics, that is, through the historical position. Leiser’s Argument for the Permissibility of the Death Penalty Leiser moves against Marshall’s position while invoking inverted Kantian Ethics to describe that it is not against the respect of the wrong-doers if they are given capital punishment. His position maintains that a wrong-doer, if he/she is a rational human being, has to bear the burden of the responsibility of his own action. If it happens then there is no violation against the dignity of the wrong-doer while giving him capital punishment. If, as Leiser thinks, it is not the case, that is, that the wrong-doer has not made a crime rationally, then there is no need to understand him/her as a rational autonomous human being and therefore there is no denial of human dignity while giving capital punishment. Conclusion Both Marshall and Leiser invoke Kantian theory of retribution in order to justify capital punishment. Both show an in-depth understanding of Kantian Retributive theory. However, both neglect that Kantian Retributive Theory, as Kantian Ethics is placed upon the formal position. The ideal of Kantian Ethics place human being at a highest level, but only if a human being becomes enlightened. However, he himself claims in his essay, that the process of enlightenment, though starts, yet the time has not come when we can term every one living as enlightened. Until it happens, the individual is wrapped in superstition, egoistic passions, and self-interested goals. Till that time, Kantian Retributive theory may allow the capital punishment for anyone found engaged in anti-civilizing practice or close to it. Work Cited Mackenzie, John S. A Manual of Ethics. London: University Tutorial Press, 1964. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Philosphy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1421800-philosphy
(Philosphy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1421800-philosphy.
“Philosphy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1421800-philosphy.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF The Retributive Theory of Punishment

Discuss the Moral Considerations Relevant to the Killing of Human Being

Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Discuss the moral considerations relevant to the killing of human being.... There are many questions people ask including the question why it is morally wrong to kill people.... Human beings are killed through various ways including murders, assassinations, killed in wars and conflicts and many other ways....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Capital punishment

Under these circumstances, critics of death penalty argue that killing of a criminal may not be the suitable way of punishment.... Capital punishment According to Sharp (1997), “approximately 5900 persons have been sentenced to death and 358 executed (from 1973-96) in Untied States.... One of the major arguments against capital punishment is that “it never allows a criminal to change his behavior as in the case of other forms of punishments” (Kartha)....
4 Pages (1000 words) Research Paper

General Kantian Perspective on Punishment

A Kantian is a proponent of The Retributive Theory of Punishment that was put forward by the German Law philosopher Immanuel Kant.... A Kantian is a proponent of The Retributive Theory of Punishment that was put forward by the German Law philosopher Immanuel Kant.... The theory requires that the punishment accorded to an offender should be reasonably proportional to the crime committed by the offender otherwise, an injustice has occurred.... In this theory, punishment is not justified by any good results but by the guilt of the criminal and therefore, a criminal must pay for their misdoings in a way that is proportional to the harm inflicted by their wrongdoing....
3 Pages (750 words) Essay

Punishment under a Utilitarian vs. Retributive Theory

The judiciary frequently ignores their offenders' wishes when they consider the appropriateness of punishment given.... Withholding of punishment has integrally been taken as unwelcome over the years spanning human civilization.... he purpose of punishment giving is not simply to enable offenders to feel bad about what they did but also to ensure that a certain form of rehabilitation is also taking place.... More so in the case of children, they cannot be given the adult mode of punishment, because they simply have not developed the cognitive functions that would allow them to handle the situation at hand....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Utilitarian Theories of Punishment

Utilitarian theories of punishment will serve as the focus of this discussion.... Utilitarian punishment holds the argument that punishment is justified only in incidences which serve to reduce future criminal acts.... Theory's regarding punishment is usually either retributive or utilitarian (Rawls).... 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....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

The Death Penalty and Retributive Punishment

The main aim of this paper 'The Death Penalty and Retributive Punishment' is to argue in favor of the death penalty, by reference to the use of a retributive theory of punishment.... In recent years, desert-based punishment has become the main focus of punishment – at least in the UK desert is the most popular theory today (Fletcher 1978).... Feinburg explains the severity of punishment as according to a 'desert base' (1963), an aspect we appeal to in order to explain D's level of desert – or repercussion – for his act....
10 Pages (2500 words) Research Paper

Criminal Justice System in Criminology

Certain criminal justice systems believe in a retributive form of punishment because these systems are of the view that the criminal should be punished in accordance with his/her crime (Slapper, 2012, p.... This paper will pay emphasis to different philosophies of punishment and a comparison will be conducted between these philosophies and their effectiveness.... There are various justifications for the act of punishment; the oldest one of them is that punishment leads to vengeance and revenge....
8 Pages (2000 words) Coursework

Analysis of The Retributive Theory of Punishment by Immanuel Kant

"Analysis of The Retributive Theory of Punishment by Immanuel Kant" paper discusses the contradiction between Kant's ethical and political philosophy, legal and political theory concerning punishment, and Kant's incomprehension of deterrence theory of punishment.... The answer and other aspects revolving around this question will be discussed with the help of the article by Kant, where he expounds on the retributive nature of punishment.... People in different eras and times had have been committing crimes and are sometimes successful in escaping punishment or are sometimes unfortunate enough to be captured and treated as warranted....
5 Pages (1250 words) Coursework
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us