Is Utilitarian Punishment Morally Justifiable?

[rkwright]

Is utilitarian punishment morally justifiable? Does this lead to using men as mere means to societal goals\happiness?

Generally advocates of utilitarian punishment use punishment to advance a better common good; ie deterrence. But is this morally ok? Using a person to 'make an example' so that others won't do it? Does it reduce people to mere means to an end?

[Dismas]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1447020' date='Jan 17 2008, 12:25 PM']Is utilitarian punishment morally justifiable? Does this lead to using men as mere means to societal goals\happiness?

Generally advocates of utilitarian punishment use punishment to advance a better common good; ie deterrence. But is this morally ok? Using a person to 'make an example' so that others won't do it? Does it reduce people to mere means to an end?[/quote]
If I remember correctly, there are three aspects of moral punishment.

1. Restitution: A convict has a debt to society and to any victims involved.

2. Rehabilitation: A convict has human dignity of his own, and should be given [i]appropriate means[/i] to better himself.

3. Deterrence: The public should be protected from the possibility of future crimes by the convict.

Does "making an example" repay the victims or society, besides the satisfaction of vengeance? Does "making an example" rehabilitate the criminal? Does "making an example" prevent the criminal from committing future crimes? I suppose it depends on what "making an example" means.

Does spending a day in the stocks and receiving public humiliation prevent someone from committing public drunkenness? If so, #3 is satisfied, and perhaps #2. It might, in fact, be a less cruel punishment than three months in county jail, with similar chances of cleaning the drunkard up.

Does hanging a pickpocket satisfy restitution? Perhaps it rehabilitates him? No and no. It will deter THAT pickpocket from committing a crime, and perhaps prevent others as well, or it might just cheapen life so much that they won't care, and pickpocket anyways.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1447020' date='Jan 17 2008, 01:25 PM']Is utilitarian punishment morally justifiable? Does this lead to using men as mere means to societal goals\happiness?

Generally advocates of utilitarian punishment use punishment to advance a better common good; ie deterrence. But is this morally ok? Using a person to 'make an example' so that others won't do it? Does it reduce people to mere means to an end?[/quote]
Could you be more specific? For instance, give an example of a "utilitarian" vs. a "non-utilitarian" punishment?

I'd say deterrence can be a proper goal of punishment, but should not be the sole goal. Punishments should be proportionate to the crime.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1447235' date='Jan 17 2008, 09:15 PM']Could you be more specific? For instance, give an example of a "utilitarian" vs. a "non-utilitarian" punishment?

I'd say deterrence can be a proper goal of punishment, but should not be the sole goal. Punishments should be proportionate to the crime.[/quote]

There are two theories that I know of; utilitarian punishment and retribution punishment.

Utilitarian punishment is much similar to utilitarian philosophy; it tends to see man's happiness as the ultimate end. The authors often speak of pleasure and pain; increasing the pleasure/happiness in the world while decreasing the pain. So for criminals it often means rehabilitation rather than just punishment. In order to inflict 'pain' on someone, like locking them up forever or killing them, there needs to be a bigger pleasure/happiness from it. So we punish criminals in order to increase societies happiness by deterring future crime.

Retributionists follow more of an 'eye for an eye' type thinking. Every crime has a punishment that is necessary in order to restore a balance. You did this to me; so the I (the state) am bound to do this to you. If there is any utility gained by the punishment, its an afterthought but never the drive of the punishment.

I have problems with both of them. Utilitarian views tend to be almost hedonistic. One could justify convicting an innocent person if everyone else thought they were guilty to be a deterrent (for example, a heinous murder is committed, pick a homeless person and convict them to show that murder is not acceptable; granted I don't think this would ever take place but hey, look at the duke lacrosse players?)

I tend to have some what of a problem with the retribution view also. While it seems more 'correct' it doesn't seem to allow for 'mercy' in the system. If I wanted to model our system say on God's divine justice, or mercy, I can't see making punishments necessary for the crime; wheres the Savior in the criminal system, if there indeed should even be one?


To Dismas:

In your system do all 3 of your criteria need to be met every time in order for it to be a morally just punishment? Also in your example you use the third criteria, deterrence in the sense of deterring the public, but in your criteria you speak only of individual deterrence. Which is the criteria? My guess is it would have to be only individual deterrence, for there are so many crimes and punishments that most of us know nothing about and thus there is no real public deterrence for many punishments.

Edited January 18, 2008 by rkwright

[rkwright]

I think in my original post I might have been to narrow in my question, so I'll modify it a bit:

What is a morally just criminal justice system? What are its means and ends?

[Dismas]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1447383' date='Jan 18 2008, 01:38 AM']In your system do all 3 of your criteria need to be met every time in order for it to be a morally just punishment? Also in your example you use the third criteria, deterrence in the sense of deterring the public, but in your criteria you speak only of individual deterrence. Which is the criteria? My guess is it would have to be only individual deterrence, for there are so many crimes and punishments that most of us know nothing about and thus there is no real public deterrence for many punishments.[/quote]
I believe that these are ideals to be sought, not necessarily criteria to be enforced. I would think that a means of punishment that addresses all three would be superior than one that addresses two or even one. At the same time, that doesn't necessarily make writing speeding tickets immoral.

Therefore:
Retribution does not necessarily mean restitution. Usually the words "make him pay" are involved, but he doesn't actually "pay back" for the real loss of human dignity that the victims have suffered, he merely suffers as well. Retribution theory has very little to no desire in lifting the criminal out of his deviance, though allowing prison chaplains (very often Catholic priests) and prison ministry does answer this. Retribution theory does, however, often prevent future crimes from being committed, at least when practiced consistently.

Now, given how imperfect Retribution Punishment is, what about Utilitarian? Well, utilitarian punishment, along with Utilitarianism, is a big steaming pile of bovine excrement. While pseudo-intellectuals fill their egos with their own cleverness, they fail to actually demonstrate "the math". As you pointed out, is the "Omelas" scenario, even when not considering its practical impossibility, justifiable? Also, is there anyone who can tell me which is objectively better:

- Ten people suffering for a year of annoyance? (y=10x*-1*365)
- One person suffering for ten years of annoyance? (y=1x*-1*3650)
- One person suffering for one year of agony? (y=1x*-10*365)
- One person suffering for one day of unspeakable torture? (y=1x*-3650*1)

Now all these are equal if one assumes a zero-sum universe, which I don't. But there are other questions. How can we possibly measure such a metric as happiness? Does certain punishments effect a certain degree of unhappiness for everyone? Does the hardened sociopath react differently than a first-timer?

Simply put, these questions are not answered, and pseudo-intellectuals despise those who dare ask these questions. Because Utilitarian thought is so undefinable, one who embraces Utilitarian Thought can enact nearly anything, so long as it is framed within the Utilitarian non-paradigm. This is one of the cornerstones of the "Tyranny of Relativism".

I'm sorry if this isn't very organized, but I haven't had my morning coffee yet.