SURNAME1

Presented by:

Instructor:

Course Title

Date:

A Comparison paper on Benthams Deterrence Theory of Punishment with Kants Retribution

Theory of Punishment

Jeremy Benthams justify punishment on the grounds of deterrence. He believes that

punishment of criminals is morally justified by the institution capacity to discourage the criminal

occurrence. This is because, the punishment for previous crimes portray potential offenders the

mischief to be imposed upon those sentenced for future crimes. Punishment aids to deter

potential offenders through imposing suffering on actual ones. The fundamental objective of

deterrence punishment is not to confine or reform criminals, but to offer capable offenders

practical reason to obey the law in the type of fear of suffering the harms of punishment. In that

concept, the legal punishment should maximize social welfare, meaning that the benefits

obtained through deterring crime must be measured against the various costs of punishment such

as the expense of punishment, fear of repeating the crime and suffering of the punished criminal

(287). In fact, the more severe a punishment it is, the more probable that a rationally calculating

human being will cease from criminal acts. However, punishment that is too severe is unjust and

punishment that is not severe adequately will not stop criminals from committing crimes.

Eventually, the deterrence theory holds that if punishment is severe, swift and certain, a rational
 SURNAME2

individual will determine the benefits and costs before engaging in crime and will be ceased

from going against the law if the cost is higher than the benefits.

In comparison with the Kants retribution theory of punishment, Kant considers

punishment as a way of offering individual back what they indicate ought to be done to others.

According to Kant, the individual obligation is to only carry out actions which they believe a

rational person should act (288). In line with this, the deterrence theory holds that a rational

person measure the benefits and costs, and if the cost outweigh the benefits, he or she deter from

the crime. Indeed, according to retributivism, punishing the criminal is a perfect duty. It is

mandatory that a wrongdoer be treated as he or she desires, meaning that a wrongdoer engaged

in crime because he or she made a rational decision after measuring the benefits and costs, which

are held in deterrence theory.

Although Kant claims that wrongdoers are punished because punishing them is right or

just irrespective of the good it may produce, he agrees with Bentham that punishment is perfect,

though Bentham claim that punishment is used to deter future crimes. As a matter of fact, Kant

believes that the intention of the law is to safeguard peoples from acting in various ways, which

of course is the base of Bentham claim about the rationale of the law. The law is intended to

prevent people from committing crimes. The function of the law is to deter. Kant believes that a

law that inflict a punishment that cannot deter the action the law forbids is absurd (288).

Both Bethams Deterrence Theory and of Punishment and Kants Retribution Theory of

Punishment focuses on the central aim of punishment, although in one way or another, they have

conflicting objection whereby the deterrence theory of punishment is seen by its nature not
 SURNAME3

treating offenders with respect as in case of retribution theory. Both theorist, however, claims

that punishment is perfect.