•Retribution/Vengeance
•Deterrence
•Rehabilitation
•Incapacitation/Protection
•Restitution
•Criminals ought to suffer in some way
•This is due to them taking improper advantage or
inflicted unfair detriment on another individual.
•‘An eye for an eye’ – but probably not – more restoring
a moral balance or a power balance.
•Breaking the social contract – and is the symbolism of
society’s recognition that you have broken their law.
•Victims take agency from the wrongdoers to get
closure.
•‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’.
•Is wholly backward-looking, doesn’t focus on creating
more good – but creating harms to ‘mitigate previous
harms’ – a scenario making little sense.
•Brutalises society in extreme cases – people take a
form of pleasure in the suffering of others.
•Victims are irrationally barbaric in this situation.
•Imposing a sufficient penalty is necessary in order to
disincentivise criminal behaviour.
•Sets an example to society ‘don’t do this or this will
happen to you.’
•Many criminals don’t consider the consequences of
their actions.
•Often it is merely the threat of being caught, rather
than the severity of the punishment.
•Indeed, making a punishment large enough so that it
balances the utility of committing the crime often
makes it a disproportional and unfair punishment.
•‘The fluffy one’ ‘People aren’t guilty really.’
•Transforms offenders into valuable members of
society.
•Prevents further offense by persuading the criminal
that their action was wrong.
•Often people’s actions were influenced by their
environment in society e.g. Growing up in a rough
area, so the state has failed and hence takes on a duty
of reparation towards the criminal.
•Practically – it doesn’t work.
•Not sure which rehab programmes work on whom.
•Depends on individual’s psychological background.
•Is it really possible to change a life-long socially
acquired set of values?
•Prisoners often pretend to have rehabilitated in order
to get early release.
•The only one Andrew doesn’t think is rubbish.
•Keeps criminals away from society so society is
protected from their misconduct.
•Obvious utilitarian benefit.
•Got to let them out at some point (or maybe you
don’t... But that would be inhumane)
•Clearly not absolute – or we’d be cutting hands off
thieves (or at least giving them the option).
•Relies on the idea that the criminal has been ‘unjustly
enriched’
•Repays the wrong that has been done, normally
financially.
•Keeps the criminal in contact with the victim –
continuing the psychological hold on them.
•This comes up too often to be interesting ;)
•Arguments for:
•Most serious offences deserve serious punishment.
•No hope of rehabilitation.
•Effective deterrent.
•Affirms the innocent’s right to life.
•Effectively protects society
•Gives victim closure (life sentence celebrities.)
•Against:
•Brutalises society.
•Leads to innocents being executed.
•Minorities are disproportionately executed.
•State doesn’t value life.
•Denies people chance to change.
•Should treat everyone with a degree of humanity.
•Gives criminal’s family a hard time.
•Rubbish deterrent and equally good protection exists.