Punishment

There are two competing approaches to justifying punishment: consequentialist (or utilitarian) and deontological.

The consequentialist approach holds that we punish people because of the positive effects that this has on society. Specifically, there are three purposes that punishment can serve: punishment can protect us from dangerous criminals, confining them to prison; punishment can turn dangerous criminals into valuable members of society, rehabilitating them; punishment deters other would be criminals, reducing crime. This, according to the consequentialist, is why we are justified in punishing people: it makes the world a better place.

The deontological approach to justifying punishment focuses not on the consequences of punishing criminals, but on the justice of the act itself. Punishment may not make the world a better place, but it is the right thing to do anyway. It may make the criminal’s life worse (because he has to suffer the punishment), and it may make our lives worse (because we have to pay for the criminal to be punished), but on the deontological account punishment is all about justice; it doesn’t matter whether it makes the world better or not.