3 - Utilitarianism

Question 1

What do Beccaria and Bentham believe about punishment?

Answer 1

Beccaria and Bentham believe that punishment is an ‘evil’ that can only be morally permissible if it can be proved that its infliction will prevent greater harm and suffering in the future.

Where punishment can be shown to fail to serve the greater good it should be abandoned.

This could lead to inequality and bias

Question 2

What do Beccaria and Bentham believe about humans?

Answer 2

Human beings are seen as rational and capable of making their own decisions

So utilitarians argue that as long as the pains of punishment outweigh the pleasure/advantages of crime then future offending is prevented because a rational human being would say that its not worth it.

So if crime was on the increase what would utilitarians say needs to be done? Increase the penalty so the disadvantages outweigh the advantages to commit crime.

Question 3

It is this notion of general prevention which Bentham finds the most important justification of punishment…

Answer 3

General prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment, as it is its real justification. If we could consider an offence which has been committed as an isolated fact, the likes of which would never recur, punishment would be useless. It would be only adding one evil to another. But when we consider that an unpunished crime leaves the path of crime open not only to the same delinquent, but also to all those who may have the same motives and opportunities for entering upon it, we perceive that the punishment inflicted on the individual becomes a source of security to all. Bentham, 1830:20-21

Question 4

For Bentham punishment can serve the greater good in three ways…

Answer 4

By taking from the offender the physical powers of offending (Incapacitation)

By taking away the desire to offend (rehabilitation)

By making the offender afraid of offending (deterrence)

Question 5

Criticisms…

Answer 5

They need to prove empirically that punishment does actually reduce future crimes. - Recidivism rates very high

There is nothing to prevent the punishment of innocent people - Cases of miscarriages of justice

There are no safeguards to ensure that the severity of the sentence is commensurate to the harm of the offence.

Offenders are used as ‘a means subservient to the purposes of another’ rather than being treated as ends in themselves, thus denying their human dignity (Kant, 1887:195)