Morality of Punishment - Essay Example

? Morality of Punishment June 3, Introduction It has long been considered the right of a leader to punish or inflict pain of some kind on one in response to criminal acts (Kant, & Gregor,). While there are distinguishing and defining differences in what is thought to be better suited for civil versus criminal court crimes are also separated by the character of the individual. Crimes can arise from that which is considered a mean character as opposed to other crimes that arise from a violent character. Punishment is very distinct from that of natural punishment; punishment of the self is thought of as natural and not guided or regulated by legislators. It is important to note that punishment should not be used as to serve an example but as fitting and appropriate for a criminal action. In any criminal proceeding, there is the burden of proof which most often falls upon the victim. It is known that in many circumstances hatred and thoughts of revenge are acceptable in the most heinous of criminal acts (Murphy). In questions of morality, we must examine the victim’s response to the action; does this response indicate to us some degree of what the victim has suffered in order to determine an appropriate deterring punishment? Victim hatred in most cases would lead the justice system more towards a retributive system and in securing these interests more libertarian beliefs may allow for social contractors to maintain a system of revenge beyond what is allowed. Herbert Morris is grounded in his belief that we have the right to punish as well as the criminal right to be punished (Morris). In claiming the right to be free we are in as much agreeing to the doctrines and laws that must followed in order to allow one to remain free. This paper will review and discuss some of the morality issues, questions, and beliefs concerning punishment from several angles. Morality of Punishment To distinguish punishment as an entity that is well defined and definitive is impossible. It is thought by Hegel that free will is such a thing that can have visible existence though it is realized only in the moment or instance that it is manifested; such as in violent actions, force, or in the decision to devoid other’s rights (Hegel, p 87, 2001). Free will is something considered destroyed by violent actions and a principle that is canceled by violence. It is the nature of the human mind to value honor above most other attributes. Kant states that those who commit murder should be inflicted the ultimate punishment of death yet in opposition of this humanity asserts that any capital punishment is wrongful and violates a contact of justice and civil behavior (Kant, & Gregor). Punishment is not suffered because one has willed it to be so; rather the individual has willed a punishable action. Crime is a negative judgment in its complete sense; while the right to injure is available, the consequences and punishments are defined. Injury is a right of the criminal and the expression of their inherent will demonstrates the freedom and liberties that are granted (Hegel) It is both reasonable and just that punishments are established and connected with violations of the rights of others (Morris). Those who violate established rules have renounced self-control or self-restraints. It is seen by some that Americans may do as they please provided there is no one willing or able to prove that their actions are fundamentally wrong. This creates situations where victims fall prey to the system and are accounted for by the burden of proof. This in itself constitutes the re-victimizing of a victim. Are criminals granted the right to be protected and shielded from the potential hate and desire for strong revenge from victims? Is this a constitutional or fundamental right that should be ensured in severe cases of victimization? Are victims expected to show little emotion, anger, rage or hatred towards their violator? (Murphy) Those intent on arguing against hatred and rage will state the emotions involved in these situations are evil and irrational or more sensibly argue that these strong emotions should not affect the sentencing or criminal punishment. Hatred can be regarded as irrational or as a phobia to some but those who are arguing against these emotions have likely not experienced victimization themselves or been violated in the most crude of manners. This hatred and desire for revenge however should not continue to dominate one’s person or life; through various stages of grief and acceptance victims will usually overcome these emotions though time varies with the degree and depth of the violation and also is dependent on whether there was a connection between the victim and criminal. The argument for moral equality is primarily one of the Christian faith; all human beings should be loved, accepted, forgiven, and treated justly regardless of circumstance. Those who consider this moral equality a demand from God through their faith are often able to distance themselves emotionally from staggering criminal acts in order to avoid feelings of hatred, revenge, or rage. Retributive hatred and revenge has no role in the criminal justice system meaning that punishment of the criminal is in no way affected by the victim’s desire for retributive revenge. One cannot be held responsible to the degree of hatred of their actions by victims and we see this demonstrated in today’s criminal justice system. Major acts of violence that constitute and bring forth outrage from entire populations are not sentenced to death for the sake of humanity in most states. Desires for basic revenge lead to a retributive form of punishment that is not one that is favored by our justice system. Evaluating a basic doctrine of rights argues that if one can prove something is so it can also be proved that it is not so (Kant, & Gregor). Retribution when used in crime is the doing away of one injury with another though not literally equal in equality but equal in value to the court system and to the opinions of the public. Though the word retribution is used here, it is not meant to imply sentencing and punishment rely on the feeling of the victim or the public but on created constitutional laws that are applied regardless of the heinous nature of the criminal action. From morality standpoint self-determination of will and how one chooses to demonstrate moral behavior will differ from individual to individual though there must be a body of regulating courts that protect one from the other when morals differ. Deprivations which are accorded to those who violate these moral codes of conduct if you will, are justified and the evil of punishing the innocent is seen as far more treacherous than that of the guilty. This does favor the victim though not in a retributive of vengeful way as the victim still has the burden of proof while this may be a hardship that cannot be met despite the attempts of prosecutors (Morris). Discussion In deciding what is a moral manner in which to distribute punishment one must consider losses incurred to victims; were there victims or was the crime one which had no victim; has the individual failed to modify behavior after repeated attempts to reform and keep the individual out of the prison system and is the individual in need of services that can be provided which may reduce future criminal behavior? As a society, there is a moral responsibility, which is demonstrated through the many social agencies available to assist those who are, alcoholics, drug addicts, have difficulty with managing anger or other mental of psychiatric issues. In some cases, these are valid defenses when the offense is one that is not considered to be of great harm to another. Our judicial system attempts to recognize and assist these individuals but recidivism rates and re-arrest rates show that the system in place is simply unable to manage or meet the needs of all individuals. Victimless crimes are a separate circumstance where one’s morality may obviously be different from that of the accepted or required by law behaviors. These criminals need deterring punishments to assist them in changing their criminal behavior and often-short incarcerations in jail are sufficient. Yet other repeat offenders, often violent, show no desire to conform to the morals of society and continue to be a threat to other individuals and it is justifiable that these individuals be incarcerated and prevented for certain time periods from having access to the possibility of commenting these criminal acts again. While it is certainly moral to punish those guilty of criminal acts questions of morality arise from the fact that the burden of proof lies with the victim who is often physically and emotionally unable to relive the events in order to prosecute or act to prevent further criminal acts. Often the judicial system will allow some blame to be placed upon the victim when society considers the victim’s behavior to be immoral; promiscuous, a drug addict, alcoholic, etc. To some this reduces the victim’s credibility leaving the victim with little faith in the judicial system; some of these instances may cause hate and vengeful feelings. It is not moral for society to dictate that one’s actions precipitated the actions of another in many circumstances as free will is exercised and demonstrated at the precise time of the incident. Conclusion In deciding which punishments are moral and who should decide these factors we look to the standing constitution that has evolved over time yet still favors certain populations over others. While the death penalty has for the most part been eliminated except for in a few states, humanity justifies other conditions that one would find intolerable for crimes that were victimless. Overcrowded prison systems and jails that are filled beyond capacity seem to be low on the list of deciding moral and just punishments. These factors go unnoticed for the most part with little change. Programs are not budgeted into state funds in order to provide future deterrent programs and volunteer programs are often relied on. For this reason, some cases of incarceration seem unjust, as there is no assistance available to change the morality or thinking behavior of the criminal. References Hegel, G. "Par 87-104,209-229." Philosophy of Right. Ontario: Batoche Limited, 2001. N. pag. Print Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. Ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print. Morris, H. “Persons and Punishments” The Monoist 52.4 (1968): 476-79. Univ of Toronto. 2013. Web. 4 June 2013. http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/bclc/crimweb/bboard/PersonsandPunishment.pdf Murphy, Jeffrie G. "Getting Even: The Role of the Victim." Social Philosophy and Policy7.02 (1990): 209-25. Print. Morality of Punishment Notes Distributive justice; adopts and guides rules for legitimacy of punishment (Kant, & Gregor, p 82,1996) Victims; often there is acceptance of hatred and a desire for revenge beyond what is imposed by the legal system (Murphy,1990 p 211) Blameworthiness plays a large factor in victim related crimes, if it it seen that the victim has some degree of blame the punishment is likely less severe though blame can be defined in many ways and is primarily a biased opinion set forth by peers and Judges alike. Retributive justice is often thought of as stemming from hatred and a desire from revenge either from a group of people such as in major bombings or heinous crimes or even crimes which involve one victim who feels hatred and that the judicial system is not available to provide the punishment they fell is deserved With free will it goes unnoticed until the absolute moment when it is used to make a poor decision or action Victims of crime often want to influence sentencing decisions; this allows sentencing to be guided more by emotions than set doctrine though victims should be heard and their losses considered in these decisions Freedom is considered the ultimate goal in the reformation and updating of the constitution within states yet this freedom allows more possibility for behavior that may be considered moral by some to be ruled illegal by the states Punishment is not suffered because it is something was willed rather a punishable action was willed Moral is not opposed to the immoral standards that are not guided or ruled by law; discussion is limited to morality of punishments of those committing criminal acts and how they should be decided. If that of something you own causes injury to another that is your moral responsibility as it is your possession by freedoms granted to you Consequences can be necessary or accidental from ones actions or decisions Common sense dictates that publicity of legal proceedings is just as it serves the needs and wants of the public though whether this moral considering those involved is questionable With the law being fully known the sentenced defendant is being violated of their self-consciousness Morality works and is shown best in situations of poverty and need; charity and public systems are seen as benefits Rules are defined to prohibit injuries and harm to other individuals Therapy, unlike punishment seeks to assist and cure rather than require or deter an individual to change behavior patterns It is our moral obligation to remain compassionate to individuals despite circumstances, though we must direct this compassion to where it is most needed when dealing with Utilitarian Punishment Notes Distinguished from retributive punishment- Libertarian Intent is to deter future criminal acts through intervention or incarceration for certain periods of time Libertarian views do not publicly support the death penalty though factions may differ in order to meet their goals and political needs at the time Standard test for what is morally wrong is does the action cause some harm to others Punishment is justified only in the case of hoping to deter future criminal actions One’s pain versus pleasure principle often guides behavior It is possible that one does not know an action is considered morally wrong, as it does not harm another yet is illegal by law Much more lenient in punishment then retributive and the common form of punishment used today Utilitarian theory is dependent on the fact that one is guided somehow intrinsically into distinguishing between right and wrong though this is not always true Bentham established the utilitarianism theory based on his primary question of ‘what is the use of or,’ while Mills suggested that actions which promote happiness are right While retributive punishment looks towards preceding and past actions, utilitarianism considers future actions Some deterrence has proven effective, though jails are overcrowded often one of these short stays prevents future visits, others may be incarcerated within the prison system that is thought to be unpleasant enough to deter future actions though recidivism rates remain high However, some conduct may be considered immoral especially in older laws and standards that do not make them illegal or punishable by courts Read More