Assingment

Question 1

What is the first KU point?

Answer 1

• Retribution is a purpose of punishment which is inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrongdoing or a criminal act.
• Therefore, the justice system or a person will hold criminals accountable when they have broken the law, (they will receive the consequences which are proportionate towards their crime e.g ‘a foot for foot.’)

Question 2

What is the first moral issue?

Answer 2

• One moral issue is that many people argue it is unsophisticated and uncivilised.
• This is because it is reactive and does not consider the underlying factors that may drive people to commit crime, for example, a person may be in extreme poverty which is beyond a person’s control.
• This shows that it is wrong to punish someone further who has faced the loss of opportunities.

Question 3

What is the first religious viewpoint towards the first moral issue?

Answer 3

• Buddhists do not support retribution as they do not support the idea of revenge.
• It violates the precept of ‘Abstain from harming any living thing.’
• If retribution were in place, negative Kamma would be generated - not helping them in the next life.

Question 4

What is an implication of the Buddhist argument for the first moral issue?

Answer 4

• An implication of this argument is that retribution would not be used, and reformation would be.
• This would end the cycle of anger and resentment and allow compassion towards the criminal by giving them a second chance and generating positive Kamma into the next life.

Question 5

What is the overall judgement for the Buddhist argument for the first moral issue?

Answer 5

• Overall, I agree with the Buddhist argument.
• This is because retribution is no longer used; reformation is better as it focuses on justice and compassion towards the criminals to generate positive Kamma and live the Middle Way – a majority benefit.

Question 6

What is the second KU point?

Answer 6

• Throughout history, specifically to the Victorian Era, retributive punishments were extremely common in society, for example, servants who killed their master were boiled alive.

Question 7

What do Traditional Christians believe in terms of the first moral issue?

Answer 7

• Traditional Christians argue in support of retribution as they believe in Exodus (21:24) “An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.”
• This means that retributive punishments are morally justifiable as it has come from the word of God.
• As his word is infallible, this cannot be denied or questioned, therefore it must be morally correct.
• They would argue that people who commit the most serious crimes such as murder or rape deserve retribution placed upon them and a matching punishment, therefore the unsophisticatedness of retribution is deserved on the criminal.

Question 8

What is an implication of the Traditional Christian argument towards the first moral issue?

Answer 8

• An implication of this argument is that crime levels and the severeness of the punishments would be more likely to rise as people will think retribution is morally acceptable; therefore, society would be more harmed in the process.

Question 9

What is the overall judgement on the Traditionalist Christian view for the first moral issue?

Answer 9

• Overall, I would disagree with their stance.
• This is because although the worst crimes do need the worst punishments, they are already getting the worst through a prison sentence as their freedom has been taken away.
• It is more important to stop the causes of crime in the first place and give compassion to criminals rather than further harming them when they’ve already received their punishment.

Question 10

What is the third KU point?

Answer 10

• Retribution can help people learn about what they’ve done wrong and become a better person as well as setting an example of what society can expect if you do the same thing.

Question 11

What is the second moral issue?

Answer 11

• A moral issue with retribution is that it offers little opportunity for reformation.
• For example, capital punishment is seen as the most retributive punishment by condemning the offender to death; no second chances or possibilities are given to learn new skills or be rehabilitated.

Question 12

What is the religious viewpoint for the second moral issue?

Answer 12

• Liberal Christians would disagree towards this issue as Jesus taught that we are all capable of change and that even the worst criminals can change their lives.

Question 13

What is an example of Liberal Christian’s work?

Answer 13

• Prison Fellowship Scotland as they work in prisons and believe that ‘nobody is beyond redemption, believing in transformation.’
• They demonstrate this by the Sycamore tree which is a restorative justice initiative which encourages criminals to see the impact of their crime on others.

Question 14

What is an implication of the Liberal Christian argument towards the second moral issue?

Answer 14

• However, an implication of this argument is that keeping people in prison to reform people costs society £15bn a year, and with reoffending rates in Scotland in 2018-19 at 28.3%, reformation doesn’t seem to work.

Question 15

What is the overall judgement on the Liberal Christian view of the second moral issue?

Answer 15

• Overall, I disagree with the Christian viewpoint as it only works in theory as in the UK, reoffending rates are 1 in 4.
• This means that people are not being reformed as the current initiatives in place are not working.
• Retribution can be seen as a better punishment than reformation as they are still realising the consequences of their actions whilst in prison.

Question 16

What is the fourth KU point?

Answer 16

• Retributive punishments can incorporate an element of deterrence as criminals won’t want to be punished again and society will feel that balanced has been restored.

Question 17

Do Humanists argue against Liberal Christian’s?

Answer 17

• Yes as as they believe in logic and evidence instead of faith; they would not support retribution.

Question 18

Why do Humanists not support retribution?

Answer 18

• This is because it doesn’t deal with the root causes of crime and does not reform people – shown as Scotland has the highest reoffending rates in the whole of Europe.

Question 19

What do Humanists support instead?

Answer 19

• Therefore, Humanists would instead deal with the root causes of crime to reduce crime rates and make society safer.
• Through this viewpoint, they would be “Treating others how you would want to be treated” as they treat criminals with compassion help them like we expect somebody else to.

Question 20

What is an implication of the Humanist argument for the second moral issue?

Answer 20

• An implication of this argument is that they would set up beneficial things such as community centres or food banks to bring people out of poverty, and people would no longer feel they have to commit crimes.

Question 21

What is the overall judgement of the Humanist viewpoint on the second moral issue?

Answer 21

• Overall, I agree with this argument, as it only causes harm to both parties.
• This is due to the constant cycle of revenge, and it is impossible to know when it stops becoming morally justifiable and edges on torture.
• Therefore, it is better to fix societal problems such as poverty.

Question 22

What is the final KU point?

Answer 22

• However, less than 100 years ago, retributive punishments were still in place, for example in 1943 with Harry Dobkin who murdered his wife and buried her in an abandoned church, he was consequently hanged for this.

Question 23

What is the final moral issue?

Answer 23

• It doesn’t make society safer.
• This is because countries that use retributive punishments (China) have high crime rates; they have a 60.8 crime index compared to a country that does not use retributive punishments (UK) is 46.9.
• This shows that retributive punishments such as the death sentence do not deter offenders and instead incentivise criminals to commit more crimes.

Question 24

What is the final religious viewpoint for the final moral issue?

Answer 24

• Utilitarians would agree with this argument as they believe that the majority should be given priority instead of the minority.
• Therefore, they would not support retribution as there aren’t solutions to high crime rates through retribution as they have low deterrence.

Question 25

What is an implication of the final religious viewpoint on the final moral issue?

Answer 25

- An implication of this argument is that crime would continue to rise in countries that support retributive punishments, and victims and society would be at serious risk of continued crime and danger to their lives.

Question 26

What is the overall judgement of the Utilitarian viewpoint on the final moral issue?

Answer 26

- Overall, I agree with this argument; retribution causes more harm to society than it does to protect. - This is because it does not solve the high crime rate in countries and provide alternative solutions to the dangers enhanced by retribution.

Question 27

What is the LOA of the conclusion?

Answer 27

- In conclusion, retribution can never be a morally justified punishment.

Question 28

What do the Tradtional Christians bring up in the conclusion?

Answer 28

- Although Traditional Christians brings up the argument that criminals always deserve proportionate punishments, this is not true for all criminals.

Question 29

Why do not all criminals deserve proportionate punishments?

Answer 29

- This is because this argument does not consider the cause of each crime, meaning that if everyone were to receive the same punishment, it would either be too harsh or weak. - Therefore, retribution is invalid as each case deserves to be investigated individually, and everyone deserves all the help they can get; this purpose of punishment would not help in that instance.