CHAPTER #2: PUNISHMENT AND DUE PROCESS
Opening Discussion Questions:
 Under what circumstances is punishment appropriate?
 What student rights must be upheld?
Purposes of punishment
1. Deter negative behavior
2. Rehabilitate the guilty
3. Separate potential dangerous individuals from society
In the case we are about to consider, only the first of these purposes was
applicable. In fact, in Mr. Fuse’s thinking, the seriousness of the offense and
the urgent need for remediation required decisive action and heavy penalty so
as to deter any potential similar behavior.
A Case To Consider (P. 24-33)
EXPLOSION IN CHEMISTRY CLASS (MR. FUSE & ALEX)
Ethical Issues




due care – unsupervised students (violation of responsibility)
violation of privacy/ school property/ theft
issue of evidence (speculative & circumstantial)
punishment (purpose & to whom applied)
o purpose: deterrence
o punishing innocent with the guilty
 principle of due process:
o giving accused opportunity to explain/ defend themselves
o giving accused the knowledge of their accuser
o giving accused knowledge of evidence against them
o jury or tribunal of peers
 severity of punishment
 code of honesty or secrecy (no ‘ratting’ on classmate)
Consequentialist Perspective
 Affect of 30pg. paper punishment on other studies
 Does the potential danger to the student body warrant the severity of the
punishments to class & Alex? (Principle of Benefit Maximization)
 Does the consequence of receiving the failing grade and its future
repercussions seem justified?
 Does the fact that no one was hurt, or really could have been, mitigate
the severity of punishment?
 If Alex’s parents push things, can this have dire consequences for Mr.
Fuse, and his superiors, for sanctioning such disciplinary treatment,
given circumstantial nature of evidence?
Non-Consequentialist Perspective
 Honesty or obligation to reveal the guilty party.
 Can or should punishment be meted out when guilt is unproven?
(circumstantial evidence)
 Is setting an example of someone (increased severity of punishment) a
justifiable course of action)? (Principle of Equal Respect for Persons)
 Punishing a group for the action of one. (punishing innocent) – PERP
 Individuals having committed acts deemed morally wrong, according to
PERP, should be regarded as free moral agents with freedom of choice,
and as such should be held accountable for neglecting their moral
responsibility
 Additionally, even the guilty could conceivably agree that morally wrong
acts be punishable (Principle of Universalization)
 Retribution Theory (“eye for an eye”): appropriate punishment balances
justice over against wrong-doing (severity should match crime)
 Motivation for severity of punishment:
o To emphasize the seriousness of offense and potential danger
inherent (duty to welfare and safety).
o Should a person’s past and associations be used against them?