The two theories justifying ‘punishment’

A philosophical discussion about the ethics of a necessary evil.

Punishment, or the act of punishing, involves the intentional and calculated suffering of an offender for wrongdoing such as a moral and legal transgression.

Read Is the act of ‘punishment’ justified? to know more.

Almost all philosophers agree that punishment is a justified act, but their explanation for this varies, including the specifics of the act. For example, the answer to the question of “What is it that punishment is meant to protect — personal autonomy and property, democracy and the constitution, individual rights, etc.?”

There are two predominant types of justifications, the Utilitarian and the Retributive.

For a utilitarian, punishment is justified because it restores the balance of good and evil. It also makes one think about the consequences of one’s actions.

For a retributivist, punishment is about the offenders getting what they deserve. It’s an inverse meant to balance moral wrongdoings. Therefore, it is the injustice and wrongness of a crime that warrants punishing the wrongdoer.

A third set of philosophers believe in the compromise theory. They combine the previous two types of justifications in a way that accentuates their strength while minimizing their weaknesses. For the sake of better understanding, we will elaborate on the two major categories of theories of punishment in this blog.

First category — Forward-Looking Theories

These theories state that the justification for punishment is seated in the fact that it brings about positive future outcomes. On the basis of their varying outcomes, forward-looking theories are further divided.

Deterrence Theories

As per these theories, punishment is justified because it discourages prospective criminals from committing crimes. The efficacy of punishment as a deterrent lies in the fact that the criminal would face heavy negative repercussions upon committing crime. For example, levying hefty fines on robbers would discourage robberies.

Two factors that increase the deterrent effect of punishment are the intensity of punishment and the odds of getting caught.

It should be kept in mind that severe punishments like death penalty and life imprisonment need to be handed out cautiously, with a justified realization that doing so is the only best option.

Rehabilitation Theories

These theories aim to change the criminals’ nature/condition to decrease their criminal behavior. For example, a thief steals food because he is poor and therefore cannot afford it. On being caught, as a ‘punishment’, the said thief will be given mandatory education or training to improve his employment prospects.

A serious drawback for this theory is that its efficacy is dubious. Some criminals, like murderers, might be ‘beyond rehabilitation’, and would again pose a danger to the society once their ‘punishment’ is over.

Second Category — Backward-Looking Theories

These theories, as the name suggests, look back to the committed crime for means of its justification, in order to find a ‘suitable’ punishment.

Restorative Theories

These theories are often considered utilitarian because they aim to make the world a better place. They aim not to harm the criminal, but to help in the recovery of those who were wronged. They seek to restore the balance by making the criminal help the victims recover their loss.

While it is certainly a more ‘humane’ approach, some losses cannot be restored, like the murder of a loved one. Also, in crime involving torture, kidnapping and the like, doing the same to the criminal might seem unethical.

Retributivist Theories

As per these theories, punishment is merely seen as something the criminal deserves. One example of this is the law of retaliation, according to which robbers should be robbed, murderers should give up their own life etc.

These theories are often criticized because their primary aim, unlike the others, is not to improve the society, but to give the criminal the punishment that they deserve, just for the sake of vengeance.

Even though all of these theories have some or the other flaw, the fact that the act of punishment in itself is justified cannot be denied, nor can its necessity in a civilized society be negated.

Also read — Is the act of ‘punishment’ justified?