Carla asked:

I would appreciate some help and guidance with this essay question:

'Punishment can never be administered merely as a means of promoting another good, either with
regard to the Criminal himself or Civil Society, but must in all cases be imposed because the
individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime.' - Discuss

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

The quote is from Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Law: An Exposition of the Fundamental
Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Right.At the time of writing, there is an on-line version
at: Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science.

Punishment serves a number of legitimate purposes. I am not just talking about institutionalized
punishment, written up in the statute books, but also punishment that a parent might mete out to a
child, or a schoolteacher to a pupil. Here are the main uses:

*To deter the wrongdoer from committing a similar offence in the future.
* To deter others from committing a similar offence by making an example.
* To physically restrict the ability of the offender from repeating the offence.
* To alter the offender's behaviour patterns, so that they are less likely to offend in the future.
* To convey to the offender how strongly we feel about the wrong they have done us.
* To make up for the injustice committed by the wrongdoer by paying them back.
* To give the offender the opportunity to atone for their offence.
* To give the offender the opportunity to rejoin the moral community.

It is important to notice that Kant says that punishment should never merelybe used as a means for
promoting another good. He is not saying that punishment cannot alsobe used as such a means.
There is a echo here from Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork
for the Metaphysic of Morals.I should always treat other persons as 'ends in themselves' and not
merelyas a 'means to my end'.

Possibly, there may be other motives for punishment which could be added to the above list. One
question you have to answer is which of the motives is capable of being used as an acceptable
justificationfor the punishment meted out. Here we come to the question of philosophical theoriesof
punishment. One book you might look at is Ted Honderich Punishment: The Supposed Justifications
originally published in 1969.

Kant's view would be classified as 'retributivist'. However, retributivism encompasses a number of
ideas. The central idea is that of returning the scales of justice to their rightful balance. Opponents of
this view of justice see it as merely a cover for the primitive emotion of revenge.

The idea of balancing is crucial in opposing punishments which are more severe than is justified by
the nature of the crime. At the time of Charles Dickens, a person could hanged for stealing a loaf of
bread. I was shocked to learn that in the State of Utah there was recently a case where a prisoner
faced the death penalty for aggravated assault. The biblical concept of 'an eye for an eye' has been
much criticized. But at least it sets acceptable limits. By any intuitively acceptable standard of justice,
it is unjust to demand a lifefor an eye.

Geoffrey Klempner