Osama asked:

Please can somebody send me all they know about philosophy of punishment.

============

Basically punishment is a sanction against violating the law which is an instrument for the protection
of society and there are three main theories of punishment which seek to answer the general
question of what justifies punishment, but they also need to account for the more specific questions of
who we can punish, and how severely. In most countries, there are defences available to someone
who has violated the law, such as duress or provocation. So a theory needs to be able to support an
account of when it is appropriate not to punish.

One theory of what justifies punishment is utilitarian, the main proponent being Jeremy Bentham.
Punishment protects the majority of law-abiding citizens. Firstly, it is in the interests of the majority
that a minority who are causing harm should be punished: this can mean they are taken out of society
by imprisonment. Secondly, the establishment of a system of punishment means that the majority do
not need to take the law into their own hands. Such a theory has difficulty answering questions about
how severely we can punish and but has available theoretical grounds for saying that there are cases
when we need not punish, for instance when it is clear that someone won't re-offend because they
acted under duress.

The second kind of theory sees punishment as having a moral basis (see J L Austin and R Dworkin).
Such a theorist can hold that a person who acts wrongly, and could have done otherwise, gets what
he deserves, or he might simply hold that law is founded in moral principles. A theory, based on moral
considerations is more able to support an account of how severely we can punish. It could be
suggested that the punishment meet the harm done. This could give support to the death penalty for
murderers. Again there are grounds to support cases where punishment is not appropriate, such as
when a person could not have done otherwise because he acted under duress or was insane.

Thirdly, there are non-retributive theories which hold that punishment acts as a deterrence. Bentham
held that punishment was a deterrent, as well as having utilitarian value, but the main modern-day
proponent of this approach is H L A Hart. Punishment will deter an offender from re-offending and
also deter those who might consider committing an offence from doing so. We have the freedom to
offend or not, the more severe the punishment the greater the deterrence, and the overall
characterisation of law as a deterrent allows room for theorising about excuse, mitigation and
defence.

These theories take punishment for granted. The Platonic view is that there should be no need for
punishment. We should strive to notice those people who have criminal tendencies and try to
re-educate or cure them, so that they will naturally behave in a way which is socially acceptable.
Although punishment might seem like a violation of the freedom, really it offers a greater freedom
than the Platonic view. Where there is law and punishment, we have the freedom to offend and
accept punishment or, if we are lucky, get away with it. In a Platonic state, there is no freedom to
offend or follow one's criminal tendencies. So while punishment is that which everyone but a
masochist or someone who feels safest in prison seeks to avoid, it has a positive aspect.

Rachel Browne