REMOVING FREEDOM – PUNISHMENT 1 The state often takes an individual’s freedom away as a form of punishment. The question that arises here is this: “What reasons can be given for removing an individual’s liberty?”. Philosophers have tried to justify the punishment of individuals by the state in four main ways: (a) as retribution, (b) as [a] deterrent/ce, (c) as protection for the society and (d) as reform of the person punished. It should be noted that: punishment as retribution is often defended from a deontological position (in ethics); the other three are typically defended on consequentialist grounds.

REMOVING FREEDOM – PUNISHMENT 2 Punishment as retribution: In very simple terms, this states that if an individual has intentionally broken the law, then he/she must pay back for their wrong-doing. This is all that needs to be said in order to justify punishing an individual. And, this is why this form of punishment is often considered to be equivalent to revenge. One last point: it should be noted that punishment as retribution demands that the punishment be proportional to the crime committed. This is known as the lex talionis principle. There are quite a few criticisms of retributivism. We will briefly examine two of them. Many people believe that it appeals to the most primitive feelings of human beings. They believe that it is nothing more than revenge. Another problem: the fact of the matter is that retributivism completely ignores the possible consequences of punishment. We will explain what this means with the use of an example -- the example of the single mother who embezzles money.

REMOVING FREEDOM – PUNISHMENT 3 Punishment as deterrence: This states that punishment may be justified on the basis of the fact that it may discourage law-breaking. That is, punishment may discourage the criminal from committing the same crime, and most importantly it may also deter others from following his example. It is quite clear why this is considered a utilitarian/consequentialist approach to punishment. This theory of punishment faces a serious objection. It may allow the punishment of an innocent person – if this is going to deter people from law-breaking activities. Obviously, this would be a blatant violation of the principle of justice. In addition, many complain that punishment as deterrence simply does not work. We will explain this point with the use of examples. See also your textbook, p. 84.

REMOVING FREEDOM – PUNISHMENT 4 Punishment as protection of the society: The rationale here is quite simple. We punish an individual to ensure that he stops harming other people/the society. It should be evident why this is also considered to be a consequentialist approach to punishment; it promotes the principle of utility. There are problems with this approach to punishment. One of them is the fact that it is relevant only in some cases. We will explain this point in class with the use of an example. See also your textbook, p. 85. And second, it seems that this approach to punishment does not work. Imprisoning a criminal may protect society for only a limited amount of time; in the long term it actually renders him more dangerous.

REMOVING FREEDOM – PUNISHMENT 5 Punishment as reform/rehabilitation: Punishment = we place the criminal in a system that will reform/re-educate him and then return him to society as a better (and useful) person/citizen. It seems that in many cases it is simply not relevant: many criminals are simply beyond reform. Putatively, this approach to punishment faces an even more serious problem: it is plainly obvious that it does not work – according to its critics. See also the discussion in your textbook, p. 86.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE 1 Simply put, civil disobedience is the breaking of the law on the grounds of morality. To properly explain this point, however, you need to use an example; e.g. the example of M.L. King, or the example of M. Gandhi. See also the discussion in your textbook, pp Do note that if an action is to count as civil disobedience, then it needs to satisfy some further requirements: The demonstration should be a public one. The demonstration should aim at benefiting a group of people and not just one person. The demonstration should be peaceful – otherwise it is an act of terrorism(?).

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE 2 Civil disobedience seems to be open to two objections. We will briefly consider them in what follows. It is an undemocratic measure. Those who use the measure usually belong to a minority. Isn’t it undemocratic for the minority to have the power to overturn the decisions of the majority? Not really. Civil disobedience is not an effort to overturn the decisions of the majority. It is an effort to draw attention to the fact that some laws of the state are immoral – they violate the (political) rights of a group of people. It is quite often claimed that civil disobedience may lead to a slippery slope situation. That is to say, it may encourage law-breaking and thus lead to anarchy. This, however, seems to be an unjustified conclusion/objection. See also the discussion in your textbook, pp