Can It Be Justified to Punish an Innocent Person?

8/13/2019 Can It Be Justified to Punish an Innocent Person?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/can-it-be-justified-to-punish-an-innocent-person 1/5

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 ill "ollo retributi&ist

lines% and is that it is only !usti"iable to punish those 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

total misery in the uni&erse# ,rom this "ollo s% that e ought only to punish i" this punishment

pre&ents some greater e&il# unishment can pre&ent e&il in many ays% most notably by itsdeterring 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 e can see in the "ollo ing e'ample# Imagine a small to n

community% here a series o" murders has been committed# ,urther imagine that the murderer has

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% ho the entire community belie&es to be guilty%

only the sheri"" )no s o" his innocence# No i" the sheri"" ould "ollo the utilitarian line o"thought% he ould need to punish the innocent man# +e ould need to satis"y the &illages lust "or

re&enge in order to stop them "rom rioting and creating "ar greater misery% than ould be created

through the punishment o" the innocent man# 1 +o e&er one has to as) hether the satis"action o"

re&enge"ul "eelings only to pre&ent greater harm is morally !usti"iable% especially hen speci"ying

the punishment in uestion# $o gi&e the e'ample a greater sense o" reality% I ill assume that since

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 etributi&e unishment*% in The Journal of Philosophy % 3ol# 4% No# 5 6,eb# 1 %19 78% 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#

e 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# etributi&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

achels 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 e uality# 2 unishment% 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

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 ith the second premise o" this argument% that an

innocent person does not deser&e punishment% I ill go on and e'plain the "irst premise o" the

argument in more detail# $he "irst premise primarily thro s up the uestion i" anyone deser&es to be

punished at all% since a -tilitarian is unli)ely to accept this# In order to ans er this uestion% I ill

use the "ollo ing e'ample# <ssume there are three children% /ob% .im% and .oe# /ob*s mother

"orgets to gi&e her son lunch "or school on most days% 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 ith one "urther person% and

hence needs to choose hether to share 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 .# achels% * unishment and Desert*% on http:>> #!amesrachels#org>punanddes#pd" % accessed on 22#10#2010

http://www.jamesrachels.org/punanddes.pdf






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# edeser&e certain responses depending on our past actions# $his is hy a criminal% ho has done

something horrible% deser&es to be punished as a response to his bad actions in the past# <ssuming

one no also accepts the second premise o" the argument abo&e% it "ollo s that the argument is

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 ho does not deser&e to be punished% and the ma!ority o"

people ould probably consider such actions un!ust% because in order to be !ust% punishment needs

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#

5 +# .# (cClos)ey% *-tilitarian and etributi&e unishment*% in The Journal of Philosophy % 3ol# 4% No# 5 6,eb# 1 %19 78% p# 91



4122090

Biblography

+# <# /edau% * etribution and the $heory o" unishmen*% The Journal of Philosophy 6197A8

+# .# (cClos)ey% *-tilitarian and etributi&e unishment*% in The Journal of Philosophy 619 78

+# B# <# +art% *$he residential <ddress: rolegomenon to the rinciples o" unishment*%

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 619 08

.# achels% * unishment and Desert*% onhttp:>> #!amesrachels#org>punanddes#pd" % accessed on

22#10#2010

<# llis% * ecent or) on unishment*% The Philosophical Quarterly % 6199 8



Documents

Can It Be Justified to Punish an Innocent Person?