American History

Punishment involves the infliction of pain or suffering for an evil committed. Punishment thus requires justification or grounds on the reasons why such a person should be taken through that kind of agony. Philosophers seem to be in unison as far as punishment of crime is concerned, though they seem to differ regarding the extent and the nature that particular crimes should attract. While retributive theory focuses on the relationship between the act and the punishment, utilitarian conception focuses on the influence a certain punishment is going to have on the happiness of the society. In the context of this paper, I am going to focus on Kants view on punishment and compare it with the utilitarian view.

Punishment
Immanuel Kant used his retributive theory to explain his view concerning punishment. He felt that punishment should be judged on the extent of the criminals guilt and not necessarily by any other good. Every criminal is expected to pay in accordance to the crime he committed. If this is not the case, then he considers injustice to have occurred. The punishment given to a criminal must fit the crime committed. He even went ahead to explain that a murderer ought to be murdered. He stated that there is a difference between judicial punishment (poena forensis) and natural punishment (poena naturalis), which entails crime punishing itself and not necessarily requiring legislator involvement (Kant, 1972).

Kant expressed the opinion that judicial punishment is not meant to encourage another good as far as the criminal or the civil society is concerned. The basic reason why judicial punishment is often imposed is because of the crime that has been committed. A person should not merely be used as a means for the benefit of the others Kant feels that in such a case the suspects inborn personality can protect him. Instead, he argues that he must first be tried to find out if he is indeed guilty and deserves punishment. It is only after this stage that we can determine how the punishment is going to be beneficial to the criminal as well as other citizens. He does not agrees with the maxim that the society is greater than a single individual and as such one person can be sacrificed for the benefit of the greater society. Punishment is the administration of justice. Human life will be valueless without justice. If a criminal who has been sentenced to death is given an opportunity to have a medical experiment performed upon him, and if he survives the ordeal, he is allowed to live, then justice will not have been administered (Kant, 1972).

Kant explains punishment by the Principle of Equality. This entails the measurement of punishment in such a manner that no party involved suffers more than the other. The evil or harm that a person inflicts on the other should be inflicted upon him. Kant makes himself clear by stating that the suspect should not just be punished in another way, whatever action he took should be taken upon him, what he referred to as the Principle of Retaliation. This implies that a criminal who has been charged with murder, should himself be murdered. Punishment from Kants view is drawn from retaliation principle, which is based on equality principle (Kant, 1972).

When we consider the case of a thief, we are left to wonder how retaliation principle should apply. In this case, Kant states that the thief makes others property insecure in this case, the culprit should not be allowed to own property. This can only happen if the culprit can be supported by the community to sustain his livelihood. Such an offender should continue to live but should not own property. This means the person should be isolated in a place where he does not have any property and his livelihood be supported by the other members of the society. The support granted to him should not be free and this means that he is subject to penal labor. This means that for some duration of time, the culprit will have committed himself to slavery Some crimes such as verbal abuse may not have a similar effect upon the perpetrator as it did to the victim, in such a case, other forms of punishments may be considered. There are always judicial surrogates that can make up for the principle of retaliation depending on the nature of the case. . He insists that a person who has killed another is supposed to and for that matter must die. He feels that this is a case in which no alternative punishment can be accorded. Kants theory is basically centered on justice as well as desert. He applies these concepts in a manner that punishing innocent people is not justified. An innocent individual does not deserve and thus should not be punished. The function of the judge should thus be the administration of punishments that best suit the crimes committed (Ten, 1987).

Utilitarianism is based on the belief that something is either good or bad depending on the balance between the good and the evil associated with the action. When we consider utilitarian view on punishment, we realize that they are more incline to the outcome associated with a given action. They lay greater emphasis on the consequence that a given action is bound to elicit. There have been a number of conflicts regarding the measurement of good and evil associated with a given action and exactly to whom the good should be directed. Jeremy Bentham likened good to pleasure and pain was likened to evil. His view was that the greatest good (pleasure), should be to the largest number of individuals (Bentham, 1948). Stuart Mill likened good to happiness and unhappiness was likened to evil. His view is in agreement with that of Bentham that good should be to the largest number of individuals (Stuart, 1979).

Punishment in the utilitarian view is basically determined by the consequence. It should be the kind that will make the greater part of the population happy. If there is another option apart from punishment that would make the greater portion of the population happy, then it would be employed. The punishment does not seem to be determined by the crime but rather by considering the views of the greater population (Bentham, 1948). Crime is considered to cause unhappiness to citizens therefore, utilitarianism will always seek to abhor crime in a bid to increase happiness among the people. They believe that punishment can incapacitate offenders in the sense that if they are confined for a certain period of time, they will not be able to advance their activities during that period. They also believe that punishment can cause deterrence of crime among offenders and potential offenders. They also harbor a strong belief that punishment has the ability of rehabilitating offenders. They agree with the maxim that the society is greater than a single person thus one individual can be sacrificed for the happiness of the greater society. In the spirit of deterrence, utilitarianism, may dictate the punishment of an innocent person for the greater good of the entire society. They can use the person as an example to the rest of the society, particularly, the potential offenders (Stuart, 1979).

Kant differs with the utilitarian view on punishment in the sense that Kant insists that punishment is because of the crime committed and thus the center of focus is the offender while utilitarian view is centered on the greater society rather than the criminal in question. Utilitarian view of punishment neglects the moral aspect of such punishments and is hell-bent on punishing a person for the benefit of the others. It is morally wrong to use a person for the benefit of others. According to Kants theory, there is no loophole of punishing an innocent person as compared to the utilitarian view which may even entail bearing false witness against a person if that is bound to result in greater good to most people (Kant, 1972).

Kant accuses utilitarian conception of punishment as attempting to avoid justice by considering the views of the people. Sometimes they do not assign punishment that fits the crime and abide by the maxim that the society is greater than a single individual therefore, one person can be sacrificed at the expense of the entire society. Utilitarian conception does not seem to be centered on justice instead it is centered on the views of the people. If it occurs that the greatest number of people would be pleased by the execution of an innocent person, the utilitarianism demands that, it should be the case. Kant also feels that utilitarian conception of punishment is not founded on any moral grounds. They believe in using another persons punishment to deter the other. This in itself is a moral issue in the sense that it is immoral to use one person for the benefit of the other, without his consent if he is not bound to benefit from such kind of punishment. Kant feels that it is necessary to establish the extent of guilt of a suspect in order to ensure that he can be given a punishment that best suits his offense, thus justice is bound to prevail. According to Kant, the socially superior and the inferior should be punished in a similar manner even if their pride is bound to be hurt. Utilitarian conception, is not keen on the trial process that establishes the extent of guilt of an individual, instead they are preoccupied about the happiness of the rest of the people, even if it means fabrication of evidence (Ten, 1987).

I think that Kant has a better case because in his theory, he states that only the guilty should be punished. He also insists that no person should be punished if he has not been established to be guilty of the offense and equally punishable. This is very crucial in ensuring that a person is punished in accordance to his crime. The extent of crime is also taken into consideration this ensures that punishment is administered in a just manner. Utilitarianism may subject a criminal to relatively lenient or harsher punishments than they deserve if they are sure that it is bound to make the greatest number of people happy. Kants case is thus more justice-based as compared to utilitarian conception, and thus it is the better of the two theories.