In contrast to retributive punishment is deterrence. Deterrence has a forward-looking view of punishment because it views punishment essentially as a means of enabling society to function fully in the future. The retributive aim does not rule this out as an aim of punishment, but deterrence differs because it doesn’t punish the offence for its on sake. The deterrence argument is classically the lynchpin of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) in the principles of penal law argues that
- Punishment is not necessary if the offence will not recur;
- Punishment is only appropriate to dissuade other from behaving in the same way;
- Punishment is, therefore, to protect society for the future.
The utilitarian principle can regard punishment itself as undesirable. The aim of utility is maximising happiness and avoiding pain, any deliberate infliction of pain can be justified if it results in the greater happiness of the greater number. This view is able to look at each case with some degree of independence. It exercises a minimising policy, (the punishment inflicts as least pain as possible). The form of punishment carried out is always distributive and for the benefit of all, not a minority. This aim however unlike the retributive aim allows for the reform of the offender and seeks to prevent crime rather than wait for harm to be done.
It might be argued that capital punishment should be as public as possible, in the 18th century the process and ritual was so refined that it took a on the guise of a dramatic morality play. The crowds would watch the hanging take place. This was an example to others not to crime. However, as history went on, this was seen as barbaric and unjust. Retentionists emphasis on the good effects that the death penalty has protecting society from further harm and discouraging others from carrying out killings. On the other hand, abolitionists such as Amnesty International quote the situation in Canada where 17 years after the abolition, the murder rates were 27% lower than in 1976 when the death penalty has been abolished. Amnesty international quotes ‘the research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life in prison. The evidence as a while still gives not positive support to the deterrent argument’. Capital punishment is left with the question of does it or does it not deter? Either way we are left gambling with people’s lives. It is argued that it is therefore reasonable to use the death penalty as deterrence to save innocent peoples lives.
Js Mill argues why death is appropriate when prison without parole may have equivalent value and may also minimise the suffering caused to the prisoner. He argues that capital punishment gives trust in the legal system for law and order.
John Martin Scripps ‘the tourist from hell’ became the first westerner to be hanged in Singapore and only the second for any offence. He is the last British murderer to be hanged since Britain stopped the executions in 1964. Scripps was convicted of the murder of Gerrard Lowe after a trial began on October 2nd 1995. Scripps appeared in court to be formally charged with the murder of 32-year-old Lowe, a South African brewery engineer who was on a shopping trip to Singapore on harbour. Scripps had fled from Britain while on parole, was also a suspect in murders in Canada, and linked to murders in the UK, San Francisco, Mexico and Belize. When arrested at Changi airport Scripps was carrying US$40,000 in cash and travellers cheques and the passports and credit cards and other belongings of Lowe and the Damudes. He also had a stun-device, handcuffs, and a can of mace as well as a hammer and knives. Swabs from the hammer matched bloodstains across the carpet of the Damudes’ hotel room where the murder took place. The skulls, torsos and several limbs belonging to the bodies of the Damudes were found in a deserted tin mine on Phuket in March.
The trail began in Singapore, evidence showed how Lowe’s body was skilfully cut up and wrapped in plastic bags before being thrown away. Scripps was found that he was instructed over a six-week period in 1993, he was trained to bone out fore quarters and hind quarters of beef, sides of bacon and how to portion chicken, when he was serving a 13 year sentence for drug-related offences. A government pathologists testified that the only a doctor, veterinarian or a butcher could have dismembered the body in this manner.
The prosecution alleged that Scripps using a false name checked into the same Singapore hotel room as Lowe and later killed him. Scripps then flew out to Phuket in Thailand and was arrested on his return to Singapore’s Changi airport. When arrested Scripps had four different passports, each with different names and his photo, one of these passports belonged to Lowe and he also had the passports belonging to Canadians Sheila and Darin Dumude whose dismembered bodies were later found on Phuket island.
In a confession, Scripps admitted killing Lowe in the room in the after he was awakened by a half naked Lowe, who was smiling and touching his buttocks. Scripps said he was not homosexual and has experienced this kind of thing before and he was frightened. He said that he had used a three-pound camping hammer to hit Lowe several times on the head until he collapsed onto the carpeted floor. After realising he was dead, Scripps sought the help of a British friend to dispose of the body, who he refused to name and denied it was him who cut up the body. He said he was dazed and confused during this. Scripps said he did not report killing Lowe because he feared he would automatically be hanged under the Singapore tough laws.
The prosecution said that Scripps used Lowe’s credit card for a shopping spree and to attend a classical music concert soon after killing. They alleged that this undermined his defence that he was ‘dazed and confused’ at the time of the killing. The prosecutor cited documents showing that he used Lowe’s credit cards to but expensive luxuries and to withdraw US$8400 in cash. The prosecution used this as not ‘walking in a dream’ world as Scripps had said he was. On the contrary he knew what he was doing.
The trial lasted from October 2nd 1995 to November 6th 1995. The prosecution in the closing statement said that the conduct of the accused after the killings suggested that he was cold, callous and calculating a far cry from the confused, dazed man walking in a dream world, the picture ha gave himself was actually a man very much in control of his facilities, when he embarked on a shopping spree using Lowe’s credit card, buying a pair of fancy running shoes, a video cassette recorder and a ticket to a symphony orchestra. He is a man of who has no qualms about lying consistently. Scripps killing of Lowe was just a stir of lies to cover a premeditate murder.
The defence in the closing statement saw that Scripps’ actions were of defence and it was a homicide rather then a premeditated murder. The defence also showed that there is no evidence to show that Scripps was the murder of the Canadian tourists. The trial was adjourned for the judge to consider his verdict after more than a month of evidence. On November 10th 1995 the verdict was announced that Scripps was guilty. Scripps had appealed the decision and then withdrew it. Scripps was later hanged on the 19th April 1996.
The nature of the punishment in this case study is in line with Jeremy Bentham’s deterrence contribution of penal laws. The Punishment is not necessary if the offence will not recur, Punishment is only appropriate to dissuade others from behaving in the same way; Punishment is, therefore, to protect society for the future. All these are met in the punishment of Scripps. He was seen as a ‘serial’ killer and therefore he has and could commit the crime again, he also is a danger to society and Thailand’s low murder rates and the media hype of the case show that it is appropriate to dissuade other to commit crimes.
The case study also meets the aims of the retributive argument. The lex taxilion is put into action here. Scripps has taken life and so therefore his life has been taken.
The retributive aim has its problems. It can be questioned to what degree the retributive aim takes into account the state of mind of the offender during the crime? When carrying out a sentence what grounds does a retributive theory justify taking age, social class, mental ability, past and other factors into account? Retribution can be equitable. It seems to treat all cases the same, when most of us accept that the actions of a three 3 old baby quite different to a 14 year old and therefore must be treated differently. In similarity, the person steals bread because they are near on the brink of death through starvation has a very different motive to someone who steals because it saves them money. Is it just to punish them the same way? The retributive aim of punishment has not been in fashion in modern western societies because of utilitarian and new form of Christians, it is seen as a barbaric and uncompassionate.
Despite the problems of the retributive aim, there is still something satisfying and just about giving back what has been taken by the offender.
Criticisms of deterrence falls into two kinds: observational and philosophical. The substantial claim of the utilitarian position is that it can offer objective evidence for the implementation of punishment. It is an argument widely employed, and hardly questioned. Yet all empirical study it is far from certain whether punishment does necessarily deter others from wrong-doing. Of course it may do so, but with that certainty and with what degree of reliability? Does it make good citizens better and wash over the habitual offenders? If deterrence fails on the objective level what are the philosophical problems? The objective is open to unfairness and despite its humanitarian concern for the individual it could justify some forms of punishment as detestable.
Hoderich accuses utilitarianism of victimising. The responses to this varies as some utilitarianist follow Mill (weak rule utility) and argue that if there is general disapproval of punishing the innocent then the introduction of a rule forbidding this kind of punishment would avoid the possibility of punishment of the innocent. However, there exists the possibility in classical act utilitarianism the justification might be as Caiaphas said ‘it is expedient for you that one man should die from the people’ (John 11:50)
In Kants’ criticism according to the first formulation of the categorical imperative it is impossible to allow an innocent man to suffer, but the second imperative (practical imperative) states that people should never be used to a means to an end, and this would rule out all forms of punishment as deterrent. If in every case offenders would be treated as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves. This view ignores them as human lives and divests them of any intrinsic value or at any intrinsic value. Bentham however does argue that if the punished offender did not loose some of their dignity then there would be no deterrent effect on others. However the utility punishment does not give the means to estimate the amount of punishment, other then the minimum necessary to deter others.
I think that the Retributive way is effective because it looks after the people who have had to go through a grievance because of the crime and the retributive way allows for a satisfaction to the victims. However, this way can be seen as now backwards because killing another human is wrong and this attitude is seen more in fashion. It can be seen that society is seen to blame for murders because the state is to look after its members. I think that the most effective way is reformative because it looks at how the offender can go back into the society as a useful member but however a punishment should be made and served to have a deterrent effect.
