Whatever the reason, “retributivists” – those who believe in retribution – argue that the punishment of criminals is valuable; it is valuable in and of itself, rather than valuable because of its good consequences (for example, preventing future crime).Even if punishing murderers and thieves had no effect on reducing the overall crime rate, retributivists tend to think it’s still the right thing to do.Far better, to my mind, to plant one’s flag clearly and answer the question: which view should have priority in our thinking about punishment?
Whatever the reason, “retributivists” – those who believe in retribution – argue that the punishment of criminals is valuable; it is valuable in and of itself, rather than valuable because of its good consequences (for example, preventing future crime).Even if punishing murderers and thieves had no effect on reducing the overall crime rate, retributivists tend to think it’s still the right thing to do.Tags: Dissertation MthodeChristmas Tree Farming Business PlanPope Essay On CriticismStrategies For Solving Math Word ProblemsQuote Essay ConclusionTake Online Class For MeDescriptive Essay About Winter SeasonMba Assignment Answers
As The Conversation invites us to rethink the death penalty over the next few weeks, we must not conduct this discussion in a vacuum.
Before you ask yourself whether we should have the death penalty, consider: why hand out any punishments at all?
What is the point of a criminal reforming herself as she prepares for the execution chamber?
To be sure, many people try to mix and match different elements of these three broad views, though such mixed theories tend to be unhelpfully and can offer conflicting guidance.
“Criminals should be punished so that they and others will be less likely to commit crime in the future, making everybody safer.” Many people criticise retributivism on the grounds that it is nothing but a pointless quest for barbaric revenge.
Inflicting suffering on human beings, if it is to be morally justified, must instead have a forward-looking purpose: protecting the innocent from harm.The execution, by hanging, of Yakub Memon for his part in the 2003 Mumbai bombings invites us to revisit the vexed issue of capital punishment.Few topics incite such moral passion and controversy.The world’s religious communities are divided on the death penalty.Despite a seemingly unambiguous commitment to non-violence (or “Ahimsa”) in both Hinduism and Buddhism, scholars within those traditions continue to debate the permissibility of lethal punishment.Retributivists also think that the severity of punishment should match the severity of the crime.So, just as it is wrong to over-punish someone (executing someone for stealing a pair of shoes), it can be wrong to under-punish someone (giving him a community service order for murder).Threats of punishment realign those demands by making it irrational for self-interested individuals to break the law.If you are a defender of deterrence, you must answer two questions about capital punishment before determining where you stand.If this sounds sensible to you, you probably believe the point of punishment is not retribution, but rather deterrence.The idea here is familiar enough: people face temptations to break just laws; the demands of morality and the demands of rational self-interest sometimes seem to diverge.