The Aim of Deterring Crime - Essay Example

1. The deterrence argument for legal punishment s punishment is morally justified to the extent that it acts as a measure of prevention to thosewho are contemplating criminal activity. The aim of deterring crime is to make others think twice about committing the same or a similar offense. The deterrence argument seems to be justified by a utilitarian moral theory: that is, a moral theory that says an action is right in proportion to the happiness or pleasure it causes. Deterring punishment, even if it causes tremendous pain to one criminal, and if it rescues a group of people from unhappiness, is morally justifiable according to a utilitarian theory. For instance, in the case of drug possession, long prison sentences are justified by deterrence theory to the extent that such sentences actually do prevent people from using drugs who otherwise would not use those drugs. That last part is important because deterrence is undermined unless it prevents what would happen if the deterrence was not implemented. Deterrence is, by definition, the removal of a cause to prevent an effect. So, considering these long prison sentences for drug possession, it is certainly possible some people are deterred simply because of the potential cost of being caught with illegal substances. In most cases, however, when someone refuses to take illegal drugs, it is not because they were deterred by drug laws and long prison sentences. Rather, it is because of other reasons not related to being caught. Being caught is not necessarily a big concern for most users of illegal drugs anyway. Therefore, it seems it is once again up to the utilitarian to decide whether US drug laws and long prison sentences are justified by their effects (the results of strict controls on drugs) in reality. 2. John Rawls’ so-called end-state (or distributive justice) theory of justice stands in contrast to Robert Nozick’s entitlement (or process) theory of justice. The former proposes that all persons in the “original position” (the state of nature) should agree that all social primary goods, like opportunity and income, are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. For Rawls and the end-state theory, justice is “fairness”, especially when the proposed redistribution would improve social inequality. Nozick’s entitlement theory proposes that a distribution is just if it comes about by ethical acquisition from the state of nature or through fair allocation. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. According to Rawls’ characterization of an end-state, capitalism is not the best means of achieving the just society, for even though capitalism entails “free”, “free” does not mean “fair”. If Rawls believes that justice requires a fair distribution of primary goods, then capitalism is clearly not the economic system to achieve that end-state, given the historical record of capitalism. Nozick’s entitlement theory is much more amenable to a capitalist economic system insofar as he proposes a distribution is just if it comes about through free exchanges in property acquired from the state of nature. Social Darwinism is a social attitude that the strongest members of society will survive long enough to reproduce, and thus desirable characteristics in a society will be passed on to offspring generations. Many people connect Social Darwinism to capitalism pejoratively because they perceive capitalism as being an evolutionary process, where the strong survive and the weak are crushed and lost in history. In pure capitalism, where there is no government intervention, it is true the weak do not survive, and, in this respect, Social Darwinists are right. However, the use of evolutionary terms to describe a society of human beings is nothing more than a metaphor. In reality, Social Darwinism can have a number of terrible effects, such as in the eugenics movement in early 20th century America, where more than 30 states adopted legislation to make sterilization compulsory for certain individuals. 3. In the weeks and months before the Iraq War, a number of arguments were made both in support and in opposition to invasion. As the drama of the UN inspections played out on television, pundits analyzed these arguments; eventually, the administration was convinced war was necessary. There seem to be three arguments that are most often used to justify war with Iraq, and these existed before the war started. The first of these arguments is that at the time it was thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even had this been true, JWT would still dismiss this argument as improper justification, as war was still not a “last resort”. A “last resort” is the only option after the breakdown of peaceful measures. If the UN inspectors had found these elusive WMDs, and Iraq would not give them up for anything, then perhaps war could have been justified. However, no weapons were ever detected, and war was waged regardless. What this suggests is that even the Bush Administration did not like the WMD argument. The second of these arguments is that Iraq violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions. However, clearly this does not satisfy the proportionality clause of JWT. Israeli has violated over 32 UN resolutions, and there is no talk on Capitol Hill about invading Israel. It is wrong to arbitrarily select which countries deserve to be punished for such violations, or to select which resolutions are more important than others. Attacking a country because they violated the opinions of other countries is a disproportionate punishment. Proportionality in JTW states the anticipated benefits of a war must be proportionate to its expected evils. The third of these arguments is that Iraqi citizens ought to be liberated from a despot leader like Saddam Hussein. This argument is fundamentally mistaken and is not acceptable, at least according to the just cause clause of JTW, which states the reason for going to war needs to be just and not solely for punishing people who have done wrong. The invasion of Iraq simply to remove Saddam Hussein, as unlikely as that reasoning sounds, is still wrong because Hussein was a democratically elected leader who retained his presidency after a vote. It does not seem just to remove a people of their leader because the rest of the world considers him evil. That is acting selfishly, and not allowing the people of Iraq the right to self-sovereignty. There does not seem to be an argument available which satisfies these three conditions for a just war. The response is disproportionate, unjust, or unnecessary. 4. One common argument against gay marriage is the thought that doing so would “undermine the institution of marriage”. In essence, the argument says the following: in some indirect fashion, the marriage of John and Frank will undermine the marriage between Joe and Mary. This is easy to understand if the argument is referring to marriage in the sense of a religious or sacred ritual. It would, after all, represent a desecration of the institution. Nevertheless, our society is based on secular laws not necessarily tied to the values of any one religion. And since there are no valid secular reasons for thinking that letting gay people marry will undermine “normal” marriage. A second and equally common argument against gay marriage is the thought by many Christians that gay marriage simply is not that important, and for such a small minority, gays are disproportionately loud in voicing their concerns. However, this argument is largely unfair and mischaracterizes the gay community. Saying the gay community is small, even if true, ignores the fact that American society is not built on the right of a vast majority to create suffering in the small minority. From a utilitarian perspective, this may be true; but even from that perspective, the harms of allowing gay marriage on society as a whole have not been demonstrated to outweigh the suffering caused by banning it, even if the ban affects only a small number of people. These people are not receiving the kind of legal benefits straight couples receive when their marriage is recognized by the state or a religious institution. Thus, dismissing the issue is wrong on principle, if not on ethical grounds from the utilitarian perspective. It seems the motivation for arguing so forcefully against gay marriage stems from religious and cultural values about the necessity of the traditional family structure for raising children. Concern for the children in a homosexual household, or the opinion that marriage is strictly for the raising of children, causes opposition in people who take the notion of a traditional family very seriously. Since I am not one to hold these religious and cultural values above human freedom, if I had a son who came out as gay, my views on homosexuals and gay marriage would not change. I would not see him differently; I would support his right to marry his significant other because, as a non-religious person, I do not think gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage in general. Even if it did, the institution of marriage is not something of value to me. 5. I believe the only condition under which one is justified in harming or intimidating others is when one’s rights have been violated. By harming or intimidating the person who violated one’s rights, one is achieving retribution or receiving restitution for past wrongs. Violating another’s rights without being provoked is unjustified and, as an ethical principle, will lead to utter chaos throughout society, which is in no one’s rational self-interest. As a universal principle, using harm strictly in the context of self-defense is valid. Terrorism, within this framework, cannot be justified. Terrorism is designed to cause terror in people through the targeting of innocent people not involved whatever provoked the terrorist attack, whether conflicting religious values, overseas invasions, or otherwise. No matter what provokes the terrorist attack, it is not the innocent people being targeted by the terrorists who initiated the force; it was the military and the government that represents them. This is a distinction commonly lost on people. A government is not its people; it merely represents them. We tend to dehumanize others when we try to justify our harms and coercion by focusing on the cause of our action, and not the effect of that action on those who are affected. This contrast causes resentment in those who are attacked. People think of innocent people who are attacked by terrorists as individuals with their own characteristics and identities; terrorists who attack them think of them merely as repeats of one mold: the mold they are seeking to destroy. Thus, as a terrorist tries to justify his or her coercion, he forgets or ignores the reality of the other person’s situation and place in history. In all cases, that person has no control over the historical injustices being used to justify the terrorist attack. What all of this means is that sometimes a justification of harms rests on faulty premises, and harms are just only when done in proportion to harms done to oneself first. Read More