The moral dimensions of punishment

Moral Dimensions of Punishment

Punishment is inherently moral because it is based on assigning a binary value (right/wrong) to a behavior. Morality is therefore embedded into the punishment process, because in the act of punishment the state deems that a moral boundary has been crossed. The state then becomes imbued with power over individual lives, over the community, and over the definition of morality itself. A socially and legally sanctioned punishment generally reflects the perceived degree of moral transgression. For example, a minor felony like shoplifting will result in a fine or short prison sentence whereas a homicide could result in life in prison or even the death penalty. In each of these cases, the punishment itself also becomes laden with moral values. Imprisonment is generally accepted as a humane punishment but how effective imprisonment is remains up for debate. If the state has the moral obligation to refrain from punishments that are "cruel and unjust" then "supermax" prisons might be stepping over the moral boundaries of the justice system, not to mention capital punishment. How stridently the criminal justice system pursues convicted criminals is a core moral and ethical issue.

Punishment is a universal phenomenon. No human society confronted with infringements of its laws or customs leaves itself powerless to impose sanctions," (Townsend 2005). The primary reasoning behind Townsend's (2005) statement is the moral obligation of the state in ensuring public safety. If state-sanctioned punishment were disallowed, then there would essentially be no cohesive criminal justice system. Punishments are generally considered integral to the proper meting out of Justice. Townsend (2005) therefore concludes that punishment can and should reflect the twofold goal of protecting public safety while ensuring the ethical treatment of all citizens: "The fundamental aim is not to inflict suffering on offenders but to reassert the existence of the moral order that governs human life. That moral order emphasizes the connections between justice, right relationships and seeking after community well-being."

Punishments often reflect an ingrained belief in retribution, even revenge (Primorac, nd). The ancient roots of the American value system can be traced to Hammurabi's Code and the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" maxim of punishment. American society attempts to incorporate the ancient view of punishment with a modern system of social justice. The combination of an individual rights-based punishment system with a retributive one often leads to disputes, gray areas, and inconsistencies in the criminal justice system. For instance, there is no justifiable reason why a person who smokes marijuana should be punished by imprisonment. Even if marijuana is an illegal substance, the punishment appears unequal to the severity of the crime. The punishment is neither purely retributive (an eye for an eye) nor is it morally justifiable. Locking a person up creates potentially indelible social stigmas that can have harmful repercussions on the individual and his or her family. In the case of marijuana, the repercussions of punishment are morally unjustified in light of the nature of the crime.

Capital punishment, however, does reflect the retributive perspective and is the most obvious modern manifestation of Hammurabi's code. Even so, the moral righteousness of capital punishment is questionable for several reasons. First, capital punishment is illogical and hypocritical. If killing another human being is wrong, and if the state kills human beings, then the state is committing a wrongful act. Second, capital punishment can be considered cruel and unusual. Third, capital punishment precludes the state from promoting positive moral values in favor of a perceived increase in public safety. Whether public safety is increased by the use of capital punishment is also questionable. For the most part, capital punishment is used "solely for symbolic purposes," (Turow, cited by Stern, 2003). Capital punishment is the epitome of revenge-based, retributive justice. It would seem that even if revenge were morally just, that the state would have no justifiable role in exacting revenge.

Morally gray areas of punishment include maximum security prisons and the procedures used to control and monitor inmates. The basic conflict is between the rights of the individual offender and the rights of the victim. Justice system professionals, policy makers, and citizens face ethical conundrums when contemplating the ideal balance. What role the state should have in terms of surveillance of convicted sex offenders may also pose problems for policy makers and justice system officials. Moreover, punishment is almost always informed by political decisions, which creates further moral problems. A "tough on crime" fervor that swept through the United States during the 1980s and which still persists has had a profound impact on many American citizens. Three strikes laws and strident drugs laws are a few examples of when "tough on crime" can be an ethically questionable justice policy.