Proponents of utilitarianism envision a situation where human actions are judged by their consequences. According to Bentham, the best moral action must always maximize utility. Simply put, actions should ensure they bring about the greatest happiness among human beings. An action that does not promote happiness among people therefore does not meet this threshold. Bentham further argues that such actions must involve the two aspects of happiness; quality and quantity. Consequences, therefore, not legality, should form the basis of justification of actions by humans. Stuart Mill supports this proposition by arguing that bringing or increasing pleasure among humans should be the justification for any action. The two, however, fail to give the indicators or types of actions that are expected to bring about the greatest good. This implies that from region to region, actions that bring the greatest happiness differ. One would therefore ask, what is the relationship between utilitarianism and criminal punishment? Does utilitarianism justify punishment? Punishment is often seen by many as a consequence of certain actions. In the world today, actions are either rewarded (appreciated) or punished. Punishment is a direct consequence of actions that inflict suffering and pain to other people. There is no doubt that there is a connection between utilitarianism and punishment. Proponents of this theory would argue that utilitarianism justifies punishment only if it promotes the greatest happiness in the people. This paper seeks to analyze the connection between criminal punishment and utilitarianism. In addition, it will analyze some of the criticisms that have been levelled towards this approach, and whether such criticisms are justified.
How criminal punishments justify utilitarianism (greatest happiness among people)
Criminal punishments form an important aspect in the society. Despite this being the case, there is a need to ensure that such punishments are justified, since they deprive an individual off their happiness. As a matter of fact, criminal punishment entails inflicting pain on someone. Such pain may be due to depriving them certain rights, or physically harming them. By nature, such an action in itself would seem to be against utilitarianism as a theory (Geuss et al. 32). However, if it makes a majority of the people happy and contended, it meets the threshold.
As already explained above, utilitarianism seeks to bring out the greatest happiness in the people concerned. It therefore goes without saying that if it promotes happiness, punishment is justified. There are several reasons or situations where utilitarianism justifies punishments. These reasons are as discussed below:
Preventing further criminal actions
If a punishment helps prevent the offender from committing more harm to the society, it is justified. Crime in the society brings about undesirable effects. Stealing, killing, rape, robbery and other crimes have an element of harm to the society. Criminals may have their reasons as to why they commit such crimes, despite being aware that they inflict pain and that there are dire consequences that they may face. It will be correct to argue that such criminals reduce the pleasure of the victims. Punishment is a strategy that aims to prevent the offenders from committing further crime. By punishing the offenders, there are high chances that the crime rate in a particular region will decrease significantly. A decrease in the rate of crime will increase the happiness of the society (Geuss et a., 34). This is consistent with the tenets of utilitarianism: the attainment of the greatest happiness. From this perspective, therefore, criminal punishments are justified by utilitarianism.
Punishments as a way of deterring crime
Utilitarianism supports criminal punishments insofar as such punishments deter or discourage potential offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Deterrence is one of the objectives of punishments. By punishing offenders, people with the intention to commit similar offences might be scared because they know the possible sanctions that will be meted against them. This is one of the ways through which criminal activities are prevented in any society. Preventing crimes, no doubt, makes the society and its members happy as they don’t have to worry about being victims of crime. Jeremy Bentham would most likely approve this method if it increases the happiness of the members of a certain society.
Punishments and educating/reforming offenders
The last major way through which utilitarianism justifies criminal punishments is by taking into account that such punishments tend to educate/reform the offenders, thereby making them productive society members (Geuss.,45). Again, this is related to crime reduction. In addition to the reduced rates of crime, this approach will ensure that the society benefits by having members who are productive. There is no doubt that this will increase the happiness, thereby meeting the utilitarianism justification.
Because punishments deprive the rights of the people being punished, there is a need to ensure that they are not meted on the wrong individuals. This can be achieved in various ways. For instance, the criminal justice system of a given area should be tightened and have rules of procedure to ensure the probability of capturing the offenders is high. Rules should be put in place to ensure that the citizens or the people they guide know what constitutes an offence. Simply put, punishing a person retrospectively is against the spirit of utilitarianism. This is because the punishment meted would not serve the intended purpose.
Why crimes must be discouraged
There is no crime that causes happiness: all crimes lead to unhappiness. Criminals may benefit from their illegal activities at the expense of the society. Punishments prescribed should be based on the balance of happiness, an approach promoted by utilitarianism (Mulgan et al., 12). For instance, punishments should not be done in vain. The main reasons of meting out punishment is not to harm the offender, rather transform them. Because of this, capital punishments are highly discouraged. They do not give the accused persons an opportunity to repent and become better members of the society. Furthermore, they could lead to an insurgence in crime in an attempt to revenge. When and if this is the case, there is no doubt that the public will suffer, thereby reducing their utility. Several jurisdictions have different mechanisms of punishments to various offences. Before prescribing the type of punishment to be given, it is crucial to analyze the impact it will have to the society.
Strictly speaking, punishments, in themselves, may be against the utilitarianism approach, hence lack the justification. Today, there exist criminal punishments that may have a negative impact in the society; meaning that if they are effected, they will not increase happiness in the society. A good example is by taking into account a father in a family who is also the breadwinner. This father may commit an offence, for instance assaulting his wife. In the criminal justice system, assault is an offence that is punishable by law. Depending on its degree, it may lead to heavy punishments such as imprisonment. Going by the principles of law, similar offences ought to be met with similar consequences. Two people committing similar crimes should be equally punished. This is what brings about predictability of the law. The problem comes in when the two criminals play different roles to their families. Jailing the assaultive father, for instance, might be consistent with the rules of natural justice. However, such a move may not bring about the greatest happiness (Mulgan et al. 34). On balance, it might cause more harm than any happiness. Because the criminal justice rules exist independently, utility may be ignored by the punishment. This double-edged nature of punishment raises several questions as to the justification of utilitarianism when meting punishments.
Kantianism against Utilitarianism
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory greatly differed from the utilitarianism approach in several aspects. Unlike utilitarianism, Kantianism is based on the end of itself. In simple terms, this theory stipulates a situation where humanity is treated as an end, not as a mere means. Kantianism employs a different approach to utilitarianism in determining whether one’s actions are right or wrong. Kant, for instance, argues that one should look at their intentions, or maxims of their actions. This is different with utilitarianism which focuses on the consequences and the effects they have on the happiness of a people. Kant further argues that the reason why human life is valuable is because rational life can only be borne by humans. Simply put, human beings are rational, capable of rational decisions. Because of this, they should not be used for the happiness or enjoyment of other people. This implies a major difference. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the happiness that will be achieved or gained by people from the actions of another. Kantianism is against this and faults the approach taken by the proponents of utilitarianism.
The Kantianism theory stipulates that utilitarianism entails using humans as mere means. If this is true, a problem may arise in that sacrifice of lives may be made if such sacrifices lead to the greatest happiness. It is crucial to analyze this point critically. Proponents of utilitarianism are likely to justify punishing or killing of an innocent party, provided that such a move brings about the greatest happiness, or to facilitate an important good effect. If this is the case, then human life loses its meaning at the expense of the greater good (Mulgan et al. 56).
Kantianism also stipulates that according to utilitarianism, one can break promises which by nature are binding to the society, if such a break results in a greater good. In all aspects, this seems to be against humanity and the value for life. If this position is accepted, them it means that promises made to loved ones can be ignored if their effect brings more happiness to the society as opposed to those they were made to. In the world today, it is difficult to see or meet persons who are willing to sacrifice their lives and happiness so that the society may benefit. To this extent, Kantianism seems to get it right against utilitarianism.
Kantianism on criminal punishment
Immanuel Kant’s theory greatly differs from utilitarianism when it comes to criminal punishments. According to Kant, the only legitimate reason to punish criminals is by ensuring they are given what they deserve. From this perspective, it would seem wrong that punishing criminals with the aim of promoting happiness in other people is a wrong move. Punishing them with this aim would be against Kantianism because this will result in treating the criminals merely as a means to a certain end. Kant argues that punishments should never be meted out on the basis that they bring about happiness to the other people. If this approach is taken, then it will be right to argue that punishing criminals based on utilitarian justifications is wrong (Neo-Kantianism, 34).
It is wise to see how proponents of Kantianism would react to the utilitarian justifications to punishment. An attempt is made below.
Kant on punishments to prevent criminal actions
Utilitarianism stipulates that punishing offenders is likely to prevent further criminal actions. Kantianism is against this. According to utilitarianism, punishing offenders will ensure they will not repeat their mistakes. In this case, utilitarianism does not take into account the impact punishments have on the people being punished. Clearly, criminals are sacrificed for the sake of achieving the greatest good. The major issue that a proponent of Kantianism will raise is as regards to the death penalty. Kantianism argues that humans should not be sacrificed for the purpose of making other people happy. It is for this reason that Kantianism advocates for the abolishment of the death penalty if the aim is to make other people happy. Simply put, killing somebody denies them the opportunity to repent. Utilitarianism does not take this into account.
Kantianism and punishment
The principles Kant advocates for as the reasons for punishment are completely different from those of utilitarianism. On the administration of punishment, Kant proposes two principles: that the reason as to why people should be punished is because they have committed crimes. Second, that the punishment meted ought to be proportionate to the crime committed (Neo-Kantianism, 45). The first principle is clearly inconsistent with utilitarianism.
As a matter of fact, utilitarianism does not appreciate any of the Kantian principles. If anything, it goes opposite and parallel to these principles. As regards to Kant’ suggestion that punishment be prescribed because crime was committed, utilitarianism sees punishment as a form or a way of attaining the greatest happiness in the society by reforming or reducing the commission of crime. As opposed to the proportionality suggestion by Kant, utilitarianism argues that the punishment to be given will fully depend on the extent to which it will make people happy/maximize utility. To this second principle, proponents of utilitarianism do not take into account the proportionality aspect. As already argued, this approach based on the utility principle is wrong. To some extent, it might involve severely punishing an offender who commits a small crime so as to deter other potential criminals from engaging in similar activities. This is inconsistent with the criminal justice system which prescribes the need to have similar punishment for similar mistakes. In addition to this, such a utilitarianism move may see a serious criminal let off light, if doing so will prove to deter or discourage other potential offenders. Going by this argument, the aspect of the predictability and consistency of law will be lost (Neo-Kantianism.,45).
Kantian proponents have no issue with the death penalty if prescribed for murderers, provided it is not made in order to make others happy. It would be interesting to understand the justification given by Kant in support of the death penalty. Punishment, as a matter of fact entails violating and curtailing the categorical imperative. Punishing someone, in itself, is a measure that violates their autonomy (which Kant stands for). Death sentences end the autonomy of the offenders. It would seem that Kant’s argument in this holds no water. If he justifies that the death penalty should be upheld, then killing a criminal would be wrong. Despite this, Kant has a way out.
Kant stipulates that similar to all other actions, criminal actions have an association with certain maxims (such as assault and theft). These maxims are responsible for the violating or the harming of the other people’s autonomy. Kant argues that acting on such negative maxims endorses them. Case in point, if a person decides to kill another, then they justify the act of killing if it is done to them. Effectively, Kant implies that a person who harms another justifies harming, thereby there is no wrong if they are harmed as a result. By deciding what to do, Kant argues, people proclaim the wish that that is the way to treat people. Here, Kant cleverly escapes the argument for capital punishment as a means to make other people.
At all times, it is crucial to remember that the Kantian approach stipulates a situation where people are treated, not as mere means, but always as the ends. Punishing a criminal would mean that they are being treated as respecting their ends. This is because they are being treated in the same manner that they think people should be treated. A murderer justifies that people should be killed, so if he is sentenced to capital punishment, such a sentence is justified. Punishing them, therefore, is not as a way to bring about the greatest good, but for respecting their decisions. Kant argues that the death sentence is a means of sharing the ends of the criminal in question. Nevertheless, this explains the controversy the two theories have towards criminal punishment.
Utilitarianism on Kantianism
The above argument deeply explains the different approaches that the two ethical theories have towards criminal punishments. Proponents of the Kantian theory deeply denounce the utilitarianism approach. The vice versa is true. Proponents of utilitarianism do not agree that punishment does not serve the role of deterring or preventing crime. If anything, they argue, the only role of criminal punishments is to impose fear to criminals to prevent commission of further crimes. They justify this by arguing that curtailing the freedom of a criminal leads to a greatly happy society.
Conclusion
As an ethical theory, utilitarianism is clear: criminal punishment serves only one role, which is bringing the greatest happiness to the society. Whether by imposing fear, locking the criminals in prison, imposing death penalties on them, all such punishments have one result, that the society is bound to be calm, leading to a greater good. This argument has been widely accepted in various jurisdictions. In the US, for instance, the general consensus is that punishing criminals is necessary if they are to take responsibility of their actions. This helps minimize the rate of crime. This principle was in practice during the 1990s, when there was a sharp decrease on the rates of crime. Whether it is morally right to punish or not has been debated upon exhaustively. All in all, the utilitarian approach towards this issue is fully justified.
Works Cited
Geuss, Raymond. "Post-Kantianism." Oxford Handbooks Online (2013): n. pag. Print.
Mill, John S. "Utilitarianism." Utilitarianism and on Liberty (n.d.): 181-235. Print.
Mulgan, Tim. "Proofs of utilitarianism." Understanding Utilitarianism (n.d.): 45-60. Print.
"Neo-Kantianism." Religion Past and Present (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
"Understanding Utilitarianism." (2007): Print.
