Introduction
Imposing punishments is a widely used method of administering
discipline in a society, but it is important to also consider what benefits a
society can receive by imposing punishments, rather than inflicting harm
for satisfaction. One should also consider the offender’s close relations,
intent and aims of the crime. I aim to justify punishments by providing
multiple arguments to the statement (theories ranging from
consequentialist to retributive accounts) and providing counterarguments
and rebuttals to these arguments. I will conclude with the fact that
focusing on rehabilitative punishments are the best for societal
improvement, providing my opinion.
Defining thesis statement
Defining the core components of this topic statement is crucial to
establish the scope of the thesis. It is important to understand a common
definition of punishment as it is important to know it before evaluating,
and many theorists disagree on a common definition of punishment
(Hoskins, n.d.) (Duff and Hoskins, 2021). There are many forms of
punishment. To summarise there are 3 main points that I have understood
from my sources (Hoskins, n.d.): Punishments are burdensome, they are
intended to be burdensome, and it shows the government’s disapproval of
the offender and the offense. This essay focuses on criminal punishment
as it has a wider societal impact compared to other forms.
This thesis believes that societal development refers to the process
through which societies evolve, improve and adapt in terms of societal
structures, cultural practices and overall quality of life (Fiveable Content
Team, 2025). To reduce the burden, through punishment (Psychology
Today, n.d.), placed on society as a whole would allow improvement to
take place as it reduces costs from the government to maintain these
facilities and could be used for nursing care for the elderly and subsidised
child care for the poor (Wells, 2015), allowing equal growth to society,
which could reduce the number of people who resort to crimes, a major
cause of crime (Ahmed et al., 2025), showing why punishments are
justified as a whole.
Retributivist views
This form of justification accounts that punishments are solely
determined by the actions (Murtagh, n.d.). This form of punishment is
meant to equalise what the harms of the offender and make them
understand the severity of the crime they have committed, defined
through “Lex talionis1”(Thinking About Stuff, 2020). This would ensure
fairness, increasing public trust in the justice system, as offenders receive
the same punishment based on the severity of the offense and increase
consistency in punishments in achieving self-reflection of the offender
about the crime they committed as well.
The way of administering punishments would be simple as deciding the
punishment would mostly be the same as the offense. However, in cases
where the offense is hard to reproduce, an example being a bank robbery,
a suitable sentence in prison can be given. This should be decided
through a jury and the victim explaining their experiences, so that the
offender can be placed through a similar experience as well. If the victim
has been killed or is not in a state to talk, the offender should be punished
for their crime through capital punishment.
This aids social benefit as it reduces punishment, through the offenders
suffering punishments, not willing to commit another crime. Although it
directly does not affect
1
Lex talionis is when the punishment resembles the offence committed to the same
degree (Thinking About Stuff, 2020)