Contents
Introduction
Punishment is a common and controversial topic in philosophy, law, and ethics. What is the purpose and justification of inflicting pain or loss on someone who has violated a rule or a norm? How should we measure and proportion the severity of punishment to the gravity of the offense? What are the effects and consequences of punishment on the offender, the victim, and the society?
Different theories of punishment have attempted to answer these questions from various perspectives. One of the most influential and oldest theories is retributivism, which holds that punishment is morally right and necessary because it expresses and satisfies the demand for justice. Retributivists believe that offenders deserve to suffer for their wrongdoing, and that the state has the right and duty to impose punishment on them, regardless of any other considerations.
However, retributivism faces many challenges and criticisms from other theories, such as utilitarianism, which argues that punishment should be based on its outcomes and benefits for the society, rather than on its intrinsic value or desert. Utilitarians claim that retributivism is irrational, vindictive, and ineffective in preventing crime and promoting social welfare.
In this article, I will examine one of the main arguments of retributivism, which is that punishment is externally related to lawbreaking. This means that punishment is not a natural or logical consequence of breaking the law, but a separate and independent action that is imposed by the authority. I will explain the rationale and implications of this argument, and then evaluate its strengths and weaknesses in light of some objections and alternatives.
The External Relation Between Punishment and Lawbreaking
According to retributivism, punishment is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. Punishment is not intended to achieve any specific goals or effects, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, or restitution. Rather, punishment is justified by its own moral value, which is to express and uphold the principle of justice.
Justice, for retributivists, means giving each person what he or she deserves according to his or her actions. Those who do good deserve reward, while those who do evil deserve punishment. Punishment is therefore a way of restoring the balance and harmony that has been disturbed by the offense. Punishment also affirms the dignity and worth of the victim, who has been wronged by the offender, and of the society, whose norms and values have been violated by the offense.
However, retributivists do not claim that punishment is a natural or inevitable consequence of lawbreaking. They do not assume that there is a causal or logical connection between breaking the law and suffering pain or loss. Rather, they argue that punishment is an external or contingent relation to lawbreaking. This means that punishment is a separate and independent action that is imposed by the authority on the offender.
The authority, for retributivists, is usually the state or its representatives, such as judges or courts. The authority has the power and responsibility to enforce the law and to punish those who break it. The authority acts as a third party that intervenes between the offender and the victim, and between the offender and the society. The authority does not act on behalf of any particular interest or agenda, but on behalf of justice itself.
The external relation between punishment and lawbreaking implies that punishment is not automatic or necessary, but discretionary and optional. The authority has some choice and flexibility in deciding whether to punish or not, how much to punish, and how to punish. The authority can also take into account various factors and circumstances that may affect the decision of punishment, such as the motive, intention, character, background, remorse, repentance, cooperation, or apology of the offender.
However, retributivists also maintain some limits and constraints on the discretion of the authority. They insist that punishment must be proportional to the offense, meaning that it must match or reflect the seriousness and harm of the offense. They also insist that punishment must be consistent with the rule of law, meaning that it must follow some general and objective standards and procedures that are known and accepted by all.
The Strengths of Retributivism
The external relation between punishment and lawbreaking has some advantages and merits for retributivism. One of them is that it avoids some of the problems and paradoxes that arise from assuming an internal relation between punishment and lawbreaking.
For example, if punishment were a natural or logical consequence of lawbreaking, then it would imply that every offense must be punished in exactly the same way. This would leave no room for discretion or variation in punishing different offenders for different offenses. It would also imply that every offense must be punished regardless of any mitigating or aggravating factors or circumstances. This would leave no room for mercy or compassion in punishing offenders who may have some reasons or excuses for their actions.
Another example is that if punishment were a natural or logical consequence of lawbreaking, then it would imply that punishment is inevitable and unavoidable. This would mean that offenders have no choice or control over their fate, and that they are doomed to suffer for their actions. It would also mean that punishment is futile and meaningless, since it does not change or affect anything in the situation. It would also mean that punishment is cruel and inhumane, since it inflicts pain or loss on someone who cannot escape or resist it.
By contrast, the external relation between punishment and lawbreaking allows for some flexibility and diversity in punishing offenders. It recognizes that punishment is a human and social construct, not a natural or logical necessity. It acknowledges that punishment is a matter of judgment and decision, not a matter of fact and inevitability. It respects that punishment is a moral and political issue, not a scientific or technical one.
Another advantage of the external relation between punishment and lawbreaking is that it preserves the dignity and autonomy of the offender. It treats the offender as a rational and responsible agent, not as a passive and helpless victim. It holds the offender accountable for his or her actions, not as a product of his or her circumstances. It challenges the offender to face the consequences of his or her actions, not as a fate that he or she cannot change.
The external relation between punishment and lawbreaking also respects the dignity and autonomy of the victim and the society. It acknowledges that they have been harmed and wronged by the offense, not as a random or inevitable event. It affirms that they have a right and a claim to justice, not as a privilege or a favor. It empowers them to participate and have a voice in the process of justice, not as spectators or bystanders.
The Weaknesses of Retributivism
The external relation between punishment and lawbreaking also has some drawbacks and challenges for retributivism. One of them is that it makes punishment arbitrary and subjective, rather than objective and rational. Since punishment is not determined by any natural or logical law, but by the will and choice of the authority, it may vary depending on the whims and preferences of the authority. The authority may abuse its power and discretion to punish unfairly or excessively, or to favor some offenders over others.
Another challenge is that it makes punishment ineffective and inefficient, rather than useful and beneficial. Since punishment is not aimed at any specific goals or outcomes, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, or restitution, it may fail to prevent or reduce crime, to reform or educate offenders, or to compensate or heal victims. Punishment may also have some negative and unintended consequences, such as resentment, defiance, alienation, or recidivism among offenders, or dissatisfaction, frustration, or revenge among victims.
A third challenge is that it makes punishment immoral and unjustifiable, rather than moral and legitimate. Since punishment is not based on any higher value or principle, such as utility, welfare, or rights, but on the mere demand for justice, it may conflict with other moral values or principles that are more important or relevant in some cases. Punishment may also violate some basic human rights or dignity of the offender, such as the right to life, liberty, security, or equality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, retributivism argues that punishment is externally related to lawbreaking. This means that punishment is not a natural or logical consequence of breaking the law, but a separate and independent action that is imposed by the authority on the offender. This argument has some strengths and weaknesses for retributivism.
On one hand, it avoids some problems and paradoxes that arise from assuming an internal relation between punishment and lawbreaking. It also preserves the dignity and autonomy of the offender, the victim, and the society.
On the other hand, it makes punishment arbitrary and subjective, ineffective and inefficient, and immoral and unjustifiable. It also faces some objections and alternatives from other theories of punishment, such as utilitarianism, which argues that punishment should be based on its outcomes and benefits for the society, rather than on its intrinsic value or desert.
Therefore, retributivism needs to address these challenges and provide more convincing reasons and evidence for its claim that punishment is externally related to lawbreaking, and that this relation is morally right and necessary.
