Utilitarian Theory of Punishment in the Criminal Justice System

Our society always has problems with punishment and responsibility. As a society, we tend to pay attention to criminal penalties. Violence seems to be an indivisible part of our society We watch it on TV, read it in newspapers and books, and are currently playing violent video games. When it comes to the justice system, most citizens are concerned about how individuals are punished, even punished too severely, not sufficiently serious, even needing punishment to require psychiatric treatment I do not even know whether there is any.

Today, we have many theories about how to deal with convicted criminals. In essence, most (not all) can be integrated into two camps, utilitarianism and retaliation. Utilitarianism is concerned with the greater interests of society and any punishment should benefit society as a whole. Furthermore, the penalties used should bring greater benefits to society than crime. Utilitarianism is looking for the future as it seeks the most beneficial practices for society as a whole to reduce crime and people's happiness. The other side of the Utilitarian approach is a punitive punishment. Unlike Utilitarianism, retaliation theory goes against. Because it can only find penalties that match crime in crime and its surroundings. Criminals should only get their own desert. In other words, there is some moral responsibility in the act itself, punishment must be commensurate with moral defects.

Punishment of crime is a central issue of the criminal justice system. It is usually justified on the basis of retaliatory or practical philosophy. Punishment is the right of the perpetrator, which is a means to restore the full contractual relationship with his compatriot, according to retributors of Newcomb, and it is in line with the logic and idea of ​​social contract. Therefore, punishment is regarded as an inevitable consequence of crime, it is also the defense and compensation of law-abiding citizens. In this case, punishment is a thing of the past, criminals against criminals should graduate to adapt to the harm caused by the current crime (von Hirsch 1976, 1993; Ashworth & Wasik 1998). Revenge is criticized for defending revenge