The goals of criminal justice often require distinguishing between right and wrong. An ethical system is a basis for such decisions. To my firm belief, utilitarian ethical system is more advantageous than the systems proposed by libertarianism and determinism since it accepts human nature and puts the general safety above the individual good.
As I am convinced, of the three proposed ethical systems utilitarianism presents the most persuasive arguments and is therefore the most useful. Utilitarianism can be defined as the ethics that judges an act by its consequences rather than by employed means. In other words, if the means are harmful, but the consequences are beneficial, the act is justified. Like any other concept, utilitarianism is not flawless. We usually cannot predict far-reaching consequences of a deed, the definition of a benefit is never clear, and individual rights are mostly neglected for the sake of common good.
Despite these drawbacks, utilitarianism dominates over the other suggested systems. To prove this right, two arguments can be formulated. First, utilitarianism is much better adjusted to human nature. Since it is in human nature to seek pleasure and avoid pain, an ethical system should be consistent with it; utilitarianism is, for it values happiness more than some rigorous rules. Second, utilitarianism places general good above the good of one individual, which benefits society (Pollock, 2013, p. 35-36). For instance, the fact that the most dangerous criminals are held in supermax prisons is in accordance with utilitarian ethics: it is a violation of their rights, but it ensures the security of the country.
Surely, other proposed ethical systems possess some advantages as well. For example, libertarianism provides an individual with a great power and freedom, advocating minimum intervention of the government in the life of the society. In such a way, libertarianism promotes entrepreneurship and private initiative. It does sound inspiring and motivating until one thinks about such calamities as economic crisis, war, and, especially, crimes that happen every day. Libertarian ethical system could hardly be a basis for the solution of these problems. Utilitarianism holds that we must neglect the interests of a criminal and lock him or her in prison; libertarianism requires respecting the rights of a criminal and thus puts the whole society in danger. It seems reasonable to acknowledge that libertarianism does not provide a suitable ethical system for criminal justice.
Without any doubt, determinism has its advantages as well. It claims that any action is a predetermined consequence of the existing conditions. If we review criminal cases, we can give some points to this belief. For example, it is known that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to become criminals. In some way, determinism can be exploited in the sphere of rehabilitation; it would help the specialists to understand the character and motives of a person, whom they are going to help. However, we cannot employ this approach in criminal justice for the following reason. If we do, it will turn out that each criminal has had their own inevitable conditions that pushed them on a criminal path. Such an assumption will lead to disarray in the society. Utilitarianism treasures the good of the society (Pollock, 2013), protects it, and ensures social stability, which makes it more persuasive and reliable than determinism.
In conclusion, I am sure that utilitarian ethical system is more persuasive than the libertarian and deterministic ones. It protects common good and accepts human nature, for which reasons it is perfectly applicable to criminal justice.
References
Pollock, J. (2013). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (8th ed.). Wadsworth, CA: Cengage Learning.