Is the act of ‘punishment’ justified?
Should we willingly induce harm on someone? Do two wrongs make a right?
INTRODUCTION
Punishment is used to refer to the act of inflicting pain, loss or suffering on an individual as an expression of condemnation for people who violated the established norms of behavior despite having a choice not to.
For example, a robber is imprisoned for a certain time period for stealing cars. Another example can be that of a child being grounded for disobeying parents.
Common ways of punishing a criminal (through law) are through fines, imprisonment and death. In philosophy, theories of punishment discuss justification for different types of punishment, mostly in relation to their past facts or future implications.
Because an act of punishment implies inflicting pain or deprivation not different from what the offender had inflicted on the victims, it has been a widely agreed belief that it requires three kinds of justification — moral, legal and political.
NEED FOR PUNISHMENT
Innocent people are constantly in danger of being harmed by potential offenders. Punishment is a kind of harm that seeks to counter-balance the previous harm, and prevent future ones, for the sake of justice and peace. Punishment poses a harm that is proportionate to the harm an offender did/might do, so as to serve justice and discourage immoral acts. The victim or would-be victim is innocent and hence does not deserve to be harmed. The offender is no longer innocent, and punishing him/her will serve justice and discourage future injustice. This, in turn, will create the most ‘good’ for the most deserving people.
FREE WILL AND PUNISHMENT
Our justice system assumes the existence of free will. Because we believe that criminals have consciously and freely chosen to commit crimes, we hold it natural that for justice’s sake, they should pay the price. On the other hand, people with mental disabilities, even on committing crimes, are not held responsible because of their condition.
If it is proven true that free will does not exist, the criminal justice system will most likely collapse. How can a criminal be held responsible for committing a crime s/he had no control over? This is precisely why a few philosophers argue that the assumption of free will is vital for maintaining balance in the social system.
Both deterrence and retribution are independent of this dilemma of the existence of free will. Since criminal acts are viewed as creating an unjust imbalance, a payment to restore the balance is viewed as the only just measure. The success of deterrence depends on the inducement of fear, rather than the prevalence of rationality.
Conclusion
Since punishment involves pain and deprivation that are naturally viewed as undesirable, its intentional imposition by the state demands justification. Nevertheless, punishment is an unavoidable component of the criminal law. It can be viewed as a necessity for the existence of a stable society, in which crime is taken seriously as an act that could result in the undeniable threat of punishment.
It is generally accepted that the motive behind punishment should not be revenge or retribution. It should either be quarantine–protecting the innocent mass from the dangerous few by isolating the latter, or deterrence–persuading would-be criminals to not commit crime by highlighting the consequences.
