Kantian and Utilitarian

Kant's Theory Of Retribution Those who act criminally are required by the community to receive a punishment for those acts. To Kant, retribution is justified when it is an exact compensation for the wrong another person has done. Inappropriate punishment, on the other hand, is something which is arbitrary and more often than not, completely unrelated to the actual effect of the crime.

Therefore, it is morally unjustifiable to punish a person, while eye for an eye retribution, while it causes suffering, is justifiable because the harm done is repaid with an exact and related harm. When it comes to the death penalty, Kant would argue that such a penalty is justifiable only when it is used to redress the taking of a life.

The utilitarian framework can be used to evaluate the legitimacy of the death penalty from the point-of-view of net gain; does the punishment result in a net positive gain for the rest of the community. Both positions have strengths and weaknesses when applied to capital punishment. Kant's doctrine of retribution makes it very clear that when a person has committed a crime, against property or a person, the only correct punishment is one that exacts the very same harm inflicted - i.e.

A person who steals a car would, by Kant's principles, have their own car or equivalent thing taken from them. The problem with this, as Utilitarians point out, is that such punishments would often negatively affect people not related to the crime itself (such as family of the criminal). The utilitarian argument, that a punishment must actually result in an improvement of the greater good, is its strongest aspect.

Kant's point, while certainly an extension of the Old Testament, all too often would result in extended pain and discomfort for others in addition to the criminal. Utilitarianism, however, requires that a person be punished in a way that makes for a better community. In the case.