Arguments Against Retributivism

1926 Words8 Pages
Punishment is an infliction of a penalty that resulted from an offence. Punishment is also naturally justified when administered to those who deserve it. Retributivists claim that people who break the law deserve the punishment they get. Retributivism views punishment as a fair judgment and believe that the state should punish those who are found guilty of their wrongdoing because they deserve it. A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others. In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.

A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts. We will first look into the idea of how we treat people as they deserve. According to Rachels, “Moral judgments about what to do frequently depend on considerations about what will happen as a result of our actions.” (Rachels, 1997). People deserve to be treated the same way they treat others. Rachels has also mentioned that people can control their fates by the way they treat others. When a person does something
…show more content…
It is irrelevant to consider whether the bullet had killed B or harmed anyone, what was important is that Person A deserves the punishment because of causing harm to others. Dolinko has mentioned that retributivism is the primary basis of support for the death penalty in the United States and he has mentioned that the majority of the people supporting these do so on retributive grounds. We always have to keep in mind that punishment is different from revenge and that these offenders should deserve the punishment that they are
Open Document