1. What is a crime? Write a brief definition.
What is punishment? Write a brief definition.
What would you consider the main point of punishment to be?

2. Assess the claim that ethics should be about character rather than actions. (25 marks)

3. What is punishment?
Important: Not revenge – is administered by someone impartial, representing a legal authority.
BUT: it involves depriving someone of a great good.
How might each of the three ethical theories justify doing this? Write a sentence for each

4. Tasks
1. Make sure you have a clear definition of crime and punishment in your notes.
3. What do the three ethical theories have to say about capital punishment? Ensure you mention any disagreements within the theory itself (i.e. between act / rule / preference UT)
2. Outline the 3 different ethical approaches to punishment, make sure your notes include:
What beneficial effects do Utilitarians believe punishment has?
Why does Kant disagree with UT on why punishment is justified?
What purpose does punishment serve in VE?
4. Outline the basic criticisms of each approach to crime and punishment. If there are responses, add in the responses.
For each criticism, state whether you agree or disagree and why. Do this evaluation in a different colour.
5. Overall, which theory has the best approach to crime and punishment in your opinion? Why?
As you go through each task write the number you are up to on your whiteboard so I can check as I come round.

5. ‘All punishment in itself is evil’
Utilitarianism
‘All punishment in itself is evil’
Punishment involves inflicting pain on a person, and depriving them of something good, e.g. freedom.
It can only be justified if the harm caused is outweighed by some greater increase in happiness

6. 3 main benefits of punishment:
There are 3 reasons a Utilitarian might believe that punishment produces an increase in happiness:
Deterrence
Internal: The criminal doesn’t reoffend
External: Others do not offend
Social protection
The criminal is prevented from harming others
Reform/rehabilitation
The criminal no longer desires to commit crime

7. UT On Capital Punishment
In cases of horrific murders the death penalty may be an appropriate punishment for the utilitarian simply on the grounds that it will keep the public happy.
A rule utilitarian would argue that making the severity of punishment correspond to the strength of feeling would be a bad rule and not in the interests of utility. However if it can be argued that the death penalty would serve as a deterrent to similar crimes in the future, then it could be justified.
Preference utilitarianism would return to looking at individual cases. The preferences of all involved (including the criminal) would be taken into account.

8. Criticisms Unfair preventative punishment Disproportionate punishment
Minority report
Race riots
Disproportionate punishment
Hangings for evading parking fines
Unfairly long prison sentences to ensure social harmony
Response:
Rule utilitarianism: Only punishing the guilty, and in proportion to their crime, is a rule that will create more happiness than the alternative

9. Is the rule utilitarian’s response adequate? Why / why not?
Criticism: Still fails to take account of motive. What makes the punishing of innocent people wrong is not that it leads to social insecurity. It’s that they don’t deserve to be punished!

10. Deontology
What is wrong with the utilitarian justification of punishment? You should be able to use the categorical imperative to explain.
Kant: Criminals deserve punishment
Utilitarian justifications treat people as a means and not as an end (i.e. a means to bring about happiness)
Punishment should reflect the rational choices made by the criminal.
They are answerable to the CI1: Their action is one that they should want to be universalised

11. Deontology On Capital Punishment
The key purpose of punishment for Kant is ‘eye for an eye’, or retribution. Whether through stealing, raping or killing, criminals have violated both formulations of the categorical imperative and deserve to be treated as they have rationally chosen. This respects their autonomy.
The death penalty is therefore desirable in cases of murder. If someone has chosen to kill then they deserve to be killed.

12. So, the punishment must fit the crime (unlike utilitarianism)
Categorical imperative 1 can be used to work this out.
Any issues?

13. Criticism
Why add more unhappiness to the situation, unless it brings about some benefit?

14. ‘Justice in rectification’
Virtue Ethics
‘Justice in rectification’
The criminal deserves to be punished.
An act of injustice leads to unfair gain.
Virtue of justice requires this to be put right.
The scales of justice need to be rebalanced.

15. Virtue Ethics On Capital Punishment
The virtue of justice is pivotal, encompassing ideas of fairness, equality, and law-abidingness. Also virtue Ethics claims that the punishment should fit the crime.
The idea of retributive justice is proportional, and this is often used as a justification for capital punishment: if someone has chosen to kill numerous people purely for the pleasure of it, then they deserve to die. Death is the only punishment that fits the crime.
Aristotle does not discuss capital punishment, but he does argue that proportionality is not a simple concept. It involves the application of practical wisdom, and an understanding of the motives and circumstances of the people committing the crime.
The people who seek capital punishment on the grounds of retributive justice need to also ask themselves what their own motives are. If the punishment is desired out of anger, revenge, brutality or hatred then it is not the virtue of justice they are displaying but an array of vices

16. Criticisms
Do all crimes give the criminal an advantage? Do punishments remove this advantage?
Murder and life imprisonment
Talk of gain and loss doesn’t focus on victim, rather than justice itself
What is good about justice (in relation to eudaimonia)?
Practice of punishment is needed to develop virtue (consequences)
Individual punishments justified deontologically

17. 12 mark question – 5 mins thinking
How might a utilitarian justify preventative imprisonment (imprisoning someone so they do not commit any further crimes)?

18. Homework – Complete any missing…
1. Make sure you have a clear definition of crime and punishment in your notes.
3. What do the three ethical theories have to say about capital punishment? Ensure you mention any disagreements within the theory itself (i.e. between act / rule / preference UT)
2. Outline the 3 different ethical approaches to punishment, make sure your notes include:
What beneficial effects do Utilitarians believe punishment has?
Why does Kant disagree with UT on why punishment is justified?
What purpose does punishment serve in VE?
4. Outline the basic criticisms of each approach to crime and punishment. If there are responses, add in the responses.
For each criticism, state whether you agree or disagree and why. Do this evaluation in a different colour.
5. Overall, which theory has the best approach to crime and punishment in your opinion? Why?
Due Monday