After
studying justice, law and punishment, I decided to research further into a controversial
topic within the justice system; can punishment be justified? The imposing of
penalties upon offenders who have broken society's laws seems intuitively
justifiable, but the question I shall attempt to answer here is whether it is
philosophically justifiable.
The basic
moral question about punishment is an old age one: ‘What justifies the
infliction of punishment on people?’ Punishing people certainly needs a
justification, since it is almost always something which is harmful, painful or
unpleasant for the recipient. When individuals steal, kidnap, or kill, we
generally say this is wrong; but when a criminal is fined, imprisoned, or executed
we deem it acceptable. Though most
people would endorse the punishment of criminals if asked, it is likely that
they have not seriously considered the possibility that the amount of suffering
inflicted counts so heavily against the practice that it is in fact wrong.
Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the
opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral
thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the
deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive
ground. D. D. Raphael, a British author,
is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified
when it is both useful and deserved. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, on the other
hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish
an offender.
To justify an act is to say that it is good or
right. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to
ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason,
and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth
reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or
intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning
punishment that we can justify.
Regarding the justification of punishment,
philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral
thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to
say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be
punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be
prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A.
Philosopher Kant agreed with this statement on the basis that a person cannot
be treated merely as a means to some independent aim and must also be treated
as an end unto himself. In other words, a person may not be treated merely as a
tool or a chess-piece.
From researching this topic, I have come to the
conclusion that to claim whether punishment is justifiable or not is dependent
upon the nature of the act which the person has engaged in and the individual
circumstances to why one has sinned against God and their neighbours.
By E.C :)
