I have assumed all this time that any reader of this blog would feel as passionately as I do about the injustice caused by such occurrences within our justice system. Well, I was wrong. Recently I read an excerpt of Jeffrie G. Murphy’s, Marxism and Retribution focusing on the philosophy behind the justification of punishment in general, and one of the sections discussed the opposing views surrounding the justification of punishing the innocent. I thought it would be appropriate to introduce both sides of the coin on this issue as objectively as possible. Kantian views are based on the belief of treating persons as ends in themselves rather than simply a means to an end. Utilitarian justification of punishment lies within the total social result. An example of how these two would differ is:
Kantian – each wrongfully convicted person has a right to exoneration and a right to become free.
Utilitarian – the value of punishment is instrumental to deterrence, thus a wrongfully convicted person has served as an instrument, of deterrence, to show society that if someone commits a criminal act they will be punished.
There is in my opinion a fundamental error with the utilitarian view which would take more than an internet blog to explain however I feel it is apparent. The point however was to hopefully enlighten my readers of the contradicting theories relating inherently to the topic of this blog. Just think of a society where the government’s reputation meant more than true justice. Thankfully, reform in the opposite direction is in progress today.
There is in my opinion a fundamental error with the utilitarian view which would take more than an internet blog to explain however I feel it is apparent. The point however was to hopefully enlighten my readers of the contradicting theories relating inherently to the topic of this blog. Just think of a society where the government’s reputation meant more than true justice. Thankfully, reform in the opposite direction is in progress today.
No comments:
Post a Comment