Theories of Punishment | Utilitarian, Retributive & Restorative - Lesson | Study.com (2024)

The utilitarian theory of punishment takes the perspective of the general interests of society. Punishment is conceptualized as a tool to improve society, and this generally means that punishments are not designed to hurt the criminal to benefit the community. For instance, a utilitarian theorist might advocate that a drunk driver attend an alcohol recovery program. By doing so, the criminal becomes a better-functioning member of society and is thereby less of a danger to others. Of course, the utilitarian might also advocate that some more painful punishment be used, such as paying a fine or performing community service. This punishment would act as a deterrent to other people in society. If they see that drunk driving results in something painful, they may choose not to perform that action.

The retributive theory of punishment attempts to draw on peoples' intuition about what people deserve. In short, a retributive theorist thinks that a criminal should be hurt by their punishment because crimes warrant punishment. This view of punishment does not claim to make the criminal better (rehabilitation), no claim to make the victim better (restoration), and it is not socially beneficial. In short, the retributive theorist takes the perspective of what the criminal deserves. One example might be executing a murderer. The thought here is that someone who kills others deserves to be killed.

However, retributive theorists disagree on how far the state can punish criminals. While it is generally agreed that the punishment should fit the crime, there is disagreement about whether it should be as severe as the crime or somewhat lessened. Thus, a retributive theorist might advocate executing a murderer, but they might advocate an extended prison sentence. Note, however, that retribution is not a matter of revenge. Retributive punishments must generally be administered by a higher, impartial authority, usually after a fair trial.

Oswald Pohl was a Nazi officer sentenced to death after his trial

The restorative theory of punishment focuses on the victim's perspective. The goal of restorative justice is not to benefit society or hurt the criminal but return the victim to a state before the crime. Thus, advocates for a restorative theory of justice would endorse criminals paying reparations to the victim. In some cases, this goal is impossible. For instance, if someone commits a murder, it is impossible to restore the victim. Nevertheless, the criminal might alleviate some of the sufferings of the victim's family, for instance. For the restorative justice theorist, monetary payments, making amends, and expressing remorse are essential parts of the punishment process. Further, restorative theorists hold that punishments should benefit the victims directly. The utilitarian theory of punishment may benefit the victims of crimes, but only indirectly as members of society rather than as victims.

Modern societies draw on three different theories of punishment in criminal law. The utilitarian theory of punishment advocates using punishments as a way to benefit society. On the one hand, utilitarian theorists will propose that criminals be rehabilitated to be productive members of society again. The method involves treatment programs, therapy, or even job training. On the other hand, the utilitarian perspective will also advocate using punishments to deter future crimes. They might support public, painful punishments so that people considering committing the crime will decide not to risk being punished in such a way. The retributive theory of punishment insists that punishments are given because criminals deserve them. This view holds that state-administered punishments are measured responses to the harms committed by criminals; it does not claim to be beneficial for the victims or society more generally. Finally, the restorative theory of punishment focuses on returning the victim to a state before the crime (as far as possible). Restorative justice theorists advocate for criminals paying reparations or making restitution as far as possible. The cost of acts of restitution may exceed the material benefits of crime as long as the victim is restored. The restoration occurs, where possible, to their holdings before the crime.