Ethics and Moral Reasoning final paper

Utilitarian theory and capital punishment

As earlier indicated, the utilitarian theory is meant to restore sanity in the society. The regulations should be used to enhance happiness in the society. Ideally, capital punishment is incongruent with happiness. Therefore, the use of capital punishment should be minimum or done away with completely. The utilitarians believe that a crime free community cannot exist. The utilitarians, therefore, endeavours to inflict a significant punishment to avert crimes in the future (Manji, 2006). Notably, the theory is said to be consequential in nature. In essence, the utilitarian theory identifies that punishment incorporates consequences for the society and the offender. It, therefore, holds that the entire good offered through the punishment should surpass the entire evil.

The utilitarian theory specifies that criminal punishment should be intended to deter criminal conducts in the future. Deterrence works on both a general and specific level (Manji, 2006). The general deterrence ensures that the punishment prevents other individuals from committing the offences. The punishment, therefore, functions as an example of the entire society. It, therefore, puts individuals on the lookout that criminal offences cannot go unpunished. Conversely, the specific deterrence ensures that punishment prevents the same individual from repeating the crime. The specific deterrence operates in two ways. The offender can be imprisoned to physically avert the person from committing a crime for a particular period. Alternatively, the incapacitation is intended to be hostile to discourage the offender from committing another crime.

Explanation of utilitarian theory

The utilitarianism theory states that morality of actions is determined through adherence to the principle of great happiness. The principle guides individuals to ensure greatest degree of happiness for a considerable amount of people. The outcome of particular actions should be considered to make a moral decision. Ideally, the focus is positioned on the costs of an individual’s actions. It has been earlier established that the utilitarian theory is consequential in nature. As a result, the best form of government is the one that upholds appropriate consequences. Utilitarian's support the democracy by the relief that every individual becomes the appropriate judge for the welfare (Manji, 2006). Consequently, any government should offer the highest degree of equality and liberty. Additionally, the state should opt to guide the community through peaceful political practices.

The utilitarianism disapproves forms of punishment administered as means of making the offender pay for the crime. Nonetheless, the purpose of punishment is meant to avert crime in the future through inflicting fear for punishment. It can also be through protecting or reforming the criminal from the society. In essence, every decision and law made should offer the best result for a considerable number of individuals. The utilitarian theory does not support the capital punishment to offer justice (Materni, 2013). Ideally, the intention is to deter criminals from repeating murder since this form of punishment is not intended to be retributive. In most circumstances, the severity of punishment leads to fear which prevents crime. Capital punishment is preferred to incarceration since it prevents the offender from being discharged from prison and therefore committing another crime.

Application of utilitarian theory

Taking the life of an individual is justified if it prevents the loss of another innocent life. The capital punishment is considered a critical punishment in case the consequence of allowing the criminal to continue living will result in more murder. It is sometimes argued that the government can save money through executing murder as a substitute of supporting the offenders in prison (Bedau, 1983). The support of the offenders is normally at the expense of the society. The happiness of the society is diminished since the funds that are allocated to arts and education is used to accommodate the criminal.

It is certain that the criminal is usually not happy for the life incarceration. The utilitarian only advocates for death penalties in case the sacrifice of a criminal generates the greatest happiness to the society. The scenario requires separate consideration and subsequent appropriate punishment in case the crime is based on judgment where the consequence leads to greatest good (Manji, 2006). The utilitarian seeks rehabilitation as another reason for punishment. Rehabilitation is intended to avert future crime through offering the offenders the opportunity to succeed within the limitations of the law. The rehabilitation measures involve treatment for conditions associated with chronic violent conduct, chemical dependency, and mental illness.

Objection to capital punishment

Capital punishment should not be used for punishing crimes. It is true that there is the consideration of cost reduction when capital punishment is exercised on the offenders. There is the growing argument that the government should not use the taxpayer’s money to sustain the imprisoned offenders. Instead, the state should use the money for education and health. It is considered an efficient way of suing the government finances. The use of capital punishment does not necessary mean the eradication of crimes in the society. The essence of the utilitarian theory is to restore sanity in the society. As a result, both the offender and the society will be convinced that the offender will not repeat the crime in the future.

In conclusion, capital punishment refers to the legalised killing of a criminal as a form of punishment for the committed crime. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish the offender and discourage further wrongdoings in the future. The purpose of the theory is to restore sanity in the society. Additionally, the theory seeks to enhance happiness to the society. Criminal punishment should be aimed to deter criminal conducts in the future. The appropriate punishment should be based on adherence to the principles of great happiness. The rightful punishment should be intended to avert crime in future through inflicting fear for being punished. The utilitarian theory only supports the capital punishment if it restores happiness in the society. However, capital punishment should be substituted with rehabilitation.

References

Bedau, H. (1983). Bentham 's Utilitarian Critique of the Death Penalty. United States. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6388&contex t=jclc

Manji, R. (2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis, the Death Penalty, and Rationales for Punishment. Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=utk_interstp3

Materni, M. (2013). Criminal Punishment and the Pursuit of Justice. Retrieved from http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2011/09/michele-materni-criminal-punishment.pdf