The moral justification of punishment relies on theories such as retributivism and utilitarian theories. “Retributivism and fallible systems of punishment” by George Schedler is interpretative research formally published in 2011 (Schedler 141). The study delves into the unspoken weaknesses of retributivism as a punishment theory. Schedler starts by explaining that Immanuel Kant’s theory of retributivism is weak (241). The reason is that the theory is affected by syllogism that counters its practicability (Schedler 242). Deductions made in support of this rationale are that the theory is irrational and biased. I concur that the theory is flawed in terms of its implementation and the ability to curb recidivism.
Retribution is a punishment theory of inflicting pain similar to the magnitude of the offense. This theory holds a criminal justifiably punished by the extent of the crime committed. This explanation means that excess or lenient punishment is unjust punishment. A classical legal attribute to this theory is “lex talionis,” which implies counter with equal force (Schedler 243). As mentioned in the article, “punishment must be commensurate with the wrong committed to cancel the wrong” (Schedler 246). Therefore, this theory implies that a crime is punishable by equal force as the offense. For instance, if someone beats up their neighbor, the responsible authority should inflict the same pain on the offender by beating.
Even though this theory seems like a fair deal, its practicability in different case scenarios may be limited (Schedler 245). For instance, if a murderer commits a crime, should they also be killed? Schedler answered this question by quoting a phrase within Kant’s retribution theory that requires murderers to be put to exile (247). However, this does not prove that the crime will not occur again. For instance, in the case of a murderer, deportation does not counter this crime because it gives the murderer a chance to continue with their offense at a different location.
Unlike the retribution theory, the utilitarian theory involves inflicting different consequences to a specific crime (Schedler 262). In the case of a murderer, lifetime imprisonment would be applicable because this theory focuses on deterring crime through mentorship. The idea in utilitarian law is that punishment should bring cause less harm. This theory is more humane and viable because when a criminal receives a jail term, the correctional system confines them from causing more harm. In the incarceration system, they receive rehabilitation to become better people (Schedler 262). Although the consequences are there, there are more benefits because it provides a second chance for offenders to reform and reduce recidivism.
Although Schedler disagrees with some aspects of Kant’s theory of retribution, he admits that he is a thoroughgoing retributionist. However, Kant seems to contradict his stand at some point by ignoring strict adherence to the rule. For instance, this theory punishes rapists by castration which has lifetime consequences (Schedler 247). Strict adherence implies that the victim or the authority should assault the criminal. Castration is irreversible and unfair if the offender is unfairly incriminated.
Whether to punish crime by another crime relies on the theory. Reductivism advocates for equal input for a crime committed. Through qualitative analysis and comparison of Kant’s theory to other theories of punishment such as utilitarianism, Schedler brings to light its flaws as a punishment alternative. The major setback in this theory is its applicability to every crime because the same punishment strategy cannot apply to all offenses. Therefore, it conflicts with the moral of punishment because inflicting harm is also a form of crime.
Work Cited
Schedler, George. “Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment.” Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 30, no. 3, 2011, pp. 240–66.