Philosophical underpinnings: Kant's Retributivism, Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarian

Ask why a convicted offender should be punished, and you will get two completely different answers from two of philosophy's biggest names. Kant says: because he deserves it, full stop, regardless of any use it serves. Bentham says: only if, and only to the extent that, it produces more good than harm overall. Between them sits almost the entire modern debate on why we punish at all.

In two minutes

Kant's retributivism justifies punishment as a matter of desert alone, owed to the offender because of the wrong done, regardless of any future benefit; Bentham's utilitarianism justifies punishment only insofar as it produces enough future good — deterrence, prevention, reform — to outweigh the pain it inflicts.

The rest of this chapter

The full explanation, the cheat sheet, every previous-year question at every mark weight, the quiz and the answer skeletons are part of Political Science – II: Foundations of Political Obligation on LexBlox Semester. Sign in to unlock the subject, or read Module 1 of Legal Language and Writing free.