Immanuel Kant Theory of Justice

Immanuel Kant Theory of refereeThe philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that his retributive theories of arbitrator were based in logic and reason. The retributive side on punishableization states that penalisation is necessary, and indeed, justified, on the basis that the act of committing crime deserves punishment. The strict guide falls Kants theories created, coupled with the very nature of retributive arbitrator fuelled the arguments of those of Kants critics who claimed his move up would lead to harsh and ineffective sentencing. It is my intention to use this paper as a means of exploring and addressing these claims.Judicial punishment put forward never be used notwithstanding as a means to promote both(prenominal) other good for the felonious himself or for civil order of magnitude, but quite it mustiness in entirely cases be imposed on him besides on the ground that he has committed a crime for a human universe ought never to be manipulated merely as a means related to some others purposes First, he must be found to be deserving of punishment before consideration can be granted to the utility of this particular punishment for himself or for fellow citizens1.Upon considering the above it is work that, in Kants ken, the that purpose punishment should serve is to penalize the vile for committing a crime. Whether or non the punishment could deliver an affect on the cruels propensity to reform is at that placefore irrelevant. The punishment is there to punish the criminal for the crime they return committed nothing more, nothing less.This leads on to the speculation of just deserts. This theory is now considered to be wiz of the more orotund visible horizons on the subject of the punishment of criminals2. The key belief of the principle being that offenders must deserve punishment in the everyday thinking about punishment, the root word of desert figures prominently. Ask the somebody on the street why a wrongdoer should be pu nished, and he is likely to say that he deserves it3.Kant advocated cardinal principles regarding the track punishment should be meted out. As we have established above, the introductory of which is that the only full and proper grounds for punishment is that the criminal deserves it. And so it follows that punishing a criminal with the aim of promoting happiness, reformation or disincentive would run contrary to the categorical imperative by make the punishment a means to an end. Kants categorical imperative is the universal police that states that all lot must act in a morally purify manner at all times. therefore singles own desires or wishes cannot be interpreted into account when making a decision, as no one persons desires should be prioritized above anothers. The desired outcome of either action must be to avoid causing vilify or inflicting damage upon another person. In this regard, Kant defines an act as morally correct if it can be applied as a universal law. For example I leave alone never verbalize the truth would be deemed to be immoral because it could not be applied as universal law as, in the event of everyone having to never tell the truth, the truth would lose its significance.In simpler terms, when considering Kants categorical imperative, the formal approach surely dictates that we must consider the affect our own actions allow for have on others, and then to avoid carrying out actions that will harm or hinder the rights of others. The second of Kants principles regarding punishment relates to equilibrium the sentence reliable should be proportionate to the crime committed.Kants theories of autonomy and free decision making make up the foundations for his view on just deserts. The theory submits, firstly of all, that everybody is duty bound to respect each others rights. Kant goes on to suggest that adhering to the law is a sacrifice of ones right to immunity of choice. Therefore, those that commit crime realise an p artial benefit over those that do not. Punishment is used as a means to redress the balance between the law unchanging citizens and the criminals, removing any unfairly gained wages from the criminals. The punishment is intended to punish no more or less than relates to the advantage gained. It follows, therefore, that deterrence and reformation hurt no relevance to this method of sentencing.This type of justice system is smooth relevant today, and indeed, has been put to use by some governments. The U.S. State of calcium has rigorously applied retributive punishment philosophies to its court system. Retributive justice has been applied in California since the inception of the Determinate Sentencing Law The legislative body finds and decl bes that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment4. One of the key policies of Californias justice system is the three strike rule. The three strike rule was introduced in 19945. Its main purpose was to punish repeat offenders by opening out spacious sentences a minimum of twenty-five years to those that have been convicted of a felony and already have two strikes for violence on their record. Sentencing under these guidelines leads to particularly long, and critics say, ineffective, sentences6. The constitution has been successful in that it has kept criminals off the streets for longer7, but it can be argued that the detrimental effects, such as criminals receiving life sentences for what amounts to petty offences the troika strike doesnt have to be a violent offence outstrip the beneficial effects. This policy also conflicts with Kants categorical imperative in that receiving a life sentence for being convicted of shoplifting8(as the third strike) is not proportionate.We have already established that Kants intention is for individuals who have been found to have confused the law to receive punishment that is relative to the advantage that they have gained by committing the crime. If the above ass essment were to hold true it would mean that Andrew von Hirschs proclamation regarding the mind of the person on the street9would surely be correct. Despite this, one could argue there to be various potential flaws present at bottom the theory. Not the least of which is how to apply this theory of punishment to a criminal that has gained no discernible advantage from their crime.For example A boy livelihood alone with his mother is periodically abused by her. He is subjected to free burning mental, physical and sexual assaults that he is powerless to prevent. He is kept locked up for the majority of his time at home and is threatened that, were he to tell anyone of what he has suffered, he would receive more severe abuse. The abuse continues as he grows older and eventually he fights back. On this occasion he hears his mother approaching him via the stairs that lead to his room. He rushes to the top of the stairs and pushes her down them, resulting in her death. I would suggest t hat it is certainly arguable that the boys only intention was for the abuse to stop, rather than an intention to kill or severely injure his mother. SOURCE IT UP It surely would not be right to say that there has been any advantage gained in this example. The rest of society is not expected to endure such abuse, and so it follows that the boy was already at a disadvantage. Also, surely the victim in this crime was herself guilty of not respecting the rights of her son, as per Kants theory of just desert. This would surely lend cant to the line of thinking that it would be unfair to punish the criminal in this, albeit radical example, where there has been no advantage gained, by the very corresponding principles applied to those that have gained some advantage. This example seems to support the beliefs of Kants critics10, and certainly strengthens the view that two wrongs dont make a right.Kant endorsed capital punishment as a suitable punishment for murderers11. This stance is a good example of Kants beliefs regarding proportionality a life for a life. However, this stance also goes some look to strengthening the claims of those that believe Kants ism encourages harsh sentencing12. This leads on to the area of Kants philosophy that has attracted the most criticism. How can ending the autonomy of another, criminal or otherwise, be in keeping with Kants theories regarding categorical imperative? To use Kants own words, to hand out capital punishment must surely be classed as FIND SOME RELEVANT WORDS. Why is it that this stance can be upheld in relation to suicide or murder, but disregarded when it comes to the punishment of a criminal? Again, we turn to the view of Andrew von Hirsch, who saidA person who violates the rules has something others have the benefits of the system but by renouncing what others have assumed, the burdens of self-restraint, he has acquired an unfair advantage. Matters are not even until this advantage is in some way erased Justi ce that is punishing such individuals restores the equilibrium of benefits and burdens13Kant justifies such an approach by saying the criminal draws the evil deed back to himself when he suffers that which according to the penal law is the same as what he has inflicted on others. According to this line of thinking, a criminal that has murdered somebody else has done so because they have made a choice to do so, and in doing so, they have gained an advantage over the victim. In other words A kills B because A didnt like the look of B. By murdering B, A has sought to gain an advantage over the rest of law abiding society, who by adhering to the law, have sacrificed their exemption of choice. So, As choice to murder B, is deemed to be A unfairly reclaiming his freedom of choice. However, if A is punished via capital punishment, it is not to gain any advantage, it is merely to punish A for the crime he has committed in a proportionate manner. He has taken a life, therefore his own be comes forfeit. Again, though, there is a case for arguments against Kants stance on the matter. How can theory stand up in cases where the criminal has not acted out of any sharp-witted thought? How can Kants view apply in cases where the criminal has mazed their mind to insanity and acted on instinct rather than choice? There is no reason, no autonomy in such an instance.In conclusion, I believe Kants theory on punishment to promote certain determine which are of utmost importance to society. Namely, the categorical imperative and, in particular, his view on morally correct actions. However, there is perhaps, something robotic about his theory. It would be marvelous if everybody told the truth all of the time, regardless of consequence. It would be equally wonderful if people did not commit crime at all. I believe that enquire everyone to follow the same universal laws, while noble and beneficial in theory, cannot be achieved due to the complexity and intrinsic selfishness of human beings. Similarly, to punish them in such a way without taking deterrence, the propensity to reform, or any other individual accompanimentors pertaining to a given case, such as background and state of mind, would be unfair. While I agree that proportionality would digest certain advantages when sentencing, such as adherence to the rule of law everyone is handle equally. Kants stance on punishment also presents its fair share of problems. Namely, that peoples actions are often dictated by circumstance, which obviously would not be taken into consideration under the guide lines laid out by Kant, and presented passim this essay. Owing to this fact, I believe that Kants stance on punishment would be perfect in an ideal world. However, as unfortunate as this fact is we do not live in an ideal world.