Punishments for Crimes | Punishments for Crimes

On the subject of crime and punishment and whether punishment is always necessary for a crime as thought by the retributivists or on the utilitarian view that punishment is only necessary if it benefits society, I have sided with the idea that the latter idea is the more logical of the two. For this argument to have a clear and concise meaning, the term `punishment' is defined as any forced act by or unto an individual/s in response to a crime or act against society itself.

Utilitarians think that punishment should only be necessary if it benefits the society. This is a fair and just statement, not only that; it entails a logically and economically sound idea that not only serves justice but conserves our resources to allow a more enhanced society for us to live in. The main ingredient of a society is people and society, like people, should not allow the blood to get to their heads and act accordingly. What we would like to do doesn't mean its right, like the black American slaves, the taking of narcotics, the poor lady working at home and the child playing with fire: our emotions does not justify what's right or wrong and therefore cannot be the basis of our laws.

A fair and logical approach is needed in the making of our laws and likewise a fair and logical approach is needed in employing them. When the utilitarian view are put to effect and while working with the above definition of punishment, it can be seen that it is fair and logical to only punish when it has benefit, it is however also fair and logical to do the best possible something about a problem. When you have realised this and acknowledge that for societies benefit, something should be done about a problem, and then stretch the idea of `punishment' you will realise that for societies benefit, in 100% of cases, something should be done about a problem i.e. `punished'. The term here does not always imply harsh treatment, it may include things such as counselling, community service, etc. anything that may benefit the society from the problem. Therefore it can be concluded that for societies benefit, that something is always needed to be done for a crime.

The retributivists' idea is similar; it is in a way an idea branched from the utilitarians. The difference is there is an added emotion behind it that implies that its idea of `punishment' may not always serve a fair and ideal justice to the society.