Could it be morally right deliberately to punish an innocent person?

Student ID Number: 4122090

4122090

Could it be morally right deliberately to punish an innocent person?

In this paper I ill argue that it cannot be morally !usti"ied deliberately to punish an innocent

person# $he utilitarian theory on punishment leads% in some cases% to innocent people being punished in order to increase the o&erall happiness% as can be seen on the e'ample o" (cClos)ey*s Sheri""# In my eyes this cannot be morally !usti"ied# (y main argument lines% and is that it is only !usti"iable to punish those ill "ollo retributi&ist ho deser&e it# +o e&er an innocent person

does not deser&e to be punished and hence it cannot be morally !usti"ied to punish an innocent person# ,urther more it seems intuiti&e that punishing an innocent person cant be morally !usti"iable% hich ill be a "urther point in my argument# -tilitarianism is a philosophical school o" thought% hich aims at ma'imising the total utility or

happiness in the uni&erse# In regard to punishment this means that utilitarians ad&ocate the position that punishment should only be employed i" it increases the o&erall ellbeing# -tilitarians generally despise punishment# $his can be seen on a comment made by .eremy /entham% ho belie&ed that i" a criminal harms someone% and e harm the criminal in return% all thats been done is adding to the e ought only to punish i" this punishment ays% most notably by its total misery in the uni&erse# ,rom this "ollo s% that deterring e""ects# +o e&er% this utilitarian theory o" punishment brings about that in some cases it can be seen as right to punish an innocent person% as community% e can see in the "ollo ing e'ample# Imagine a small to n here a series o" murders has been committed# ,urther imagine that the murderer has ho the entire community belie&es to be guilty% ould "ollo the utilitarian line o" ould be created hen speci"ying ould need to satis"y the &illages lust "or hether the satis"action o" ill assume that since

pre&ents some greater e&il# 0unishment can pre&ent e&il in many

disappeared and that the local sheri"" )no s ith absolute certainty that he ill ne&er return# +o e&er% the sheri"" has a young man in custody% only the sheri"" )no s o" his innocence# No thought% he i" the sheri""

ould need to punish the innocent man# +e

re&enge in order to stop them "rom rioting and creating "ar greater misery% than through the punishment o" the innocent man#1 +o e&er one has to as) re&enge"ul "eelings only to pre&ent greater harm is morally !usti"iable% especially the punishment in 1uestion# $o gi&e the e'ample a greater sense o" reality% I

the innocent man is accused o" se&eral murders he might be e'ecuted himsel"% as it is still common in many parts o" the orld# In this e'treme case e ould need to as) i" it can be morally !usti"ied
1 +# .# (cClos)ey% *-tilitarian and 2etributi&e 0unishment*% in The Journal of Philosophy% 3ol# 44% No# 5 6,eb# 14% 19478% p# 94

4122090

to murder an innocent person to satis"y the re&enge"ul "eelings o" other people% only to pre&ent a greater e&il# In my point o" &ie % this is morally not !usti"iable# 9e should not gi&e in to in!ustice% only to pre&ent harm# Ne&ertheless it "ollo s "rom the abo&e that a utilitarian might argue that punishment is only morally !usti"iable i" it increases o&erall happiness# Sometimes it is necessary to punish an innocent person in order increase uni&ersal happiness# +ence it can be morally !usti"iable deliberately to punish an innocent person# +o e&er% e&en though the argument abo&e is &alid% i do not agree ith its "irst premise# In my eyes% punishment does not need to increase o&erall happiness to be !usti"ied# 2etributi&ists% such as Immanuel :ant% argue that punishment can be su""iciently !usti"ied on the grounds that the o""ender or criminal deser&es to be punished# +is past actions !usti"y a response in the "orm o" punishment% because the o""ender has disobeyed the social rules e regard as la s# ,urther more % as .ames 2achels points out% the la abiding citi;en bears a burden% in the sense that his actions are restricted# $he criminal has not shouldered these burdens% since he ignored social rules# <ssuming the criminal did not act completely irrationally and hence had some pro"it "rom his actions% punishment is needed in order to correct things to ards greater e1uality#
2

0unishment% ho e&er% does not

primarily need to *correct* things to ards greater o&erall happiness# <n innocent person has done nothing to deser&e punishment# +is past actions do not "a&or a negati&e response in the "orm o" punishment# $he retributi&ist argument that "ollo s is that it is only morally !usti"iable to punish those ho deser&e it# <n innocent person% ho e&er% does not ith the second premise o" this argument% that an ill go on and e'plain the "irst premise o" the ill deser&e to be punished# $hus it cannot be morally !usti"ied to punish an innocent person# Since I assume that most people generally agree innocent person does not deser&e punishment% I

argument in more detail# $he "irst premise primarily thro s up the 1uestion i" anyone deser&es to be punished at all% since a -tilitarian is unli)ely to accept this# In order to ans er this 1uestion% I "orgets to gi&e her son lunch "or school on most days% use the "ollo ing e'ample# <ssume there are three children% /ob% .im% and .oe# /ob*s mother hereas .im and .oe al ays ha&e &ery big lunch pac)s# No .im consistently shares his lunch ith /ob% hereas .oe re"uses to e&er share his lunch# =ne day .im and .oe both "orget their lunch% ho e&er /ob*s mother remembered to gi&e her son a big lunch pac) "or once# /ob only has enough "ood to share hence needs to choose hether to share ith one "urther person% and ith .im and .oe# It seems li)e /ob morally ought to share

his lunch ith .im rather than .oe% because .im*s past actions ha&e made him more deser&ing# In
2 .# 2achels% *0unishment and Desert*% on http:>> #!amesrachels#org>punanddes#pd"% accessed on 22#10#2010

4122090

"act rather than e'pressing this positi&ely one could e'press it negati&ely and say that .oe actually does not deser&e to recei&e some o" /ob*s "ood% because he has denied him "ood on all past occasions# $he same principle that "ollo s "rom this e'ample can be applied to criminal punishment# 9e deser&e certain responses depending on our past actions# $his is one no sound# In "act the belie&e that an innocent person should not be punished "or a crime he or she has not committed% seems to come intuiti&ely to most people# It is against our general understanding o" !ustice and morality to punish someone people to be ?o" an o""ender and "or an o""ence@#5 It thus "ollo s% that the punishment o" an innocent person is morally not !usti"iable# I belie&e that it is only morally !usti"iable to punish those ho deser&e it# <nd an innocent person does not deser&e to be punished# +ence it cannot be morally !usti"ied to punish an innocent person# <s seen by the e'ample o" the children /ob% .im and .oe% people deser&e responses to their past actions% negati&e and positi&e% and so it can be argued that criminals deser&e to be punished# It "ollo s "rom this% assuming one accepts that an innocent person has done nothing to deser&e punishment% that the abo&e argument is sound% and the conclusion there"ore true# ,urther more% it really seems to be intuiti&e that e ought not to punish the innocent% simply because they ha&e done nothing to deser&e such treatment# ho does not deser&e to be punished% and the ma!ority o" ould probably consider such actions un!ust% because in order to be !ust% punishment needs hy a criminal% ho has done something horrible% deser&es to be punished as a response to his bad actions in the past# <ssuming also accepts the second premise o" the argument abo&e% it "ollo s that the argument is

5 +# .# (cClos)ey% *-tilitarian and 2etributi&e 0unishment*% in The Journal of Philosophy% 3ol# 44% No# 5 6,eb# 14% 19478% p# 91

4122090

Biblography
+# <# /edau% *2etribution and the $heory o" 0unishmen*% The Journal of Philosophy 6197A8 +# .# (cClos)ey% *-tilitarian and 2etributi&e 0unishment*% in The Journal of Philosophy 619478 +# B# <# +art% *$he 0residential <ddress: 0rolegomenon to the 0rinciples o" 0unishment*% Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 619408 .# 2achels% *0unishment and Desert*% on http:>> 22#10#2010 <# Cllis% *2ecent or) on 0unishment*% The Philosophical Quarterly% 6199D8 #!amesrachels#org>punanddes#pd"% accessed on