punishing innocent people for the crimes of others

punishing innocent people for the crimes of others

Suppose there is a killer in the loose, and the police decide that to stop the killer and reduce tension in the community, they will frame an innocent man to suffer for the crimes of the culprit. The utilitarian theory would argue that framing the innocent man is appropriate because it maximizes the pleasure utility, which in this case, reduces the tension in the community and the people are happy because of the arrest of the murderer. Act utilitarianism (AUh) is a theory of morality which maintains that an act is only right if it increases pleasure utility, that is, the quantity of pleasure generated by an act for all concerned, minus the overall amount of pain produced by the act. Under utilitarian factors, an innocent person suffering on behalf of a perpetrator seems appropriate. On the other hand, a theory against AUh would maintain that framing an innocent man for the crimes he did not commit is off-limits. This is because it is against the definition of punishment, it would result in the lack of confidence in of the legal system, it is against ethical human rights, it encourages immoral behaviour, it neglects the importance of the measures of good and it compels people to breach the principles of justice.

Punishing the innocent provides a temporary solution to the problem, such as ensuring a stable society. This is because, if the police do not arrest the offender, there is a probability that the crimes will be committed again. Thus, this will result in a lack of confidence in the legal system. Once revealed that the innocent person punished did not commit the crime, the entire community might feel insecure due to the fear that they could be the next framed victim for a crime they did not commit, it is against the four functions of punishment, it breaches the standards of justice,

The idea of punishing innocent people for the crimes of others is not in line with the definition of punishment. Research indicates that the conventional definition of punishment is the imposition of severe treatment from authority to a person for his crimes. Punishment is executed only on the guilty and by no means does it tolerate the punishment of innocent people. However, the utilitarian theory of punishment inevitably does not meet the definition criterion because the offender is not punished (Kim, 2017).

Utilitarianism does not fulfil the four functions of punishment suggested in the definition of punishment. The functions of punishment which include: official disavowal, symbolic non-acquiescence, the vindication of the law in contrast and absolution of others.Formal disavowal which is an expression of condemnation from the state that in so doing denounces a particular act. Symbolic non-acquiescence, on the other hand, is the state’s decision to refuse to tolerate specific actions. Vindication of the law, in contrast, calls for the state to recognize that some acts are ethically scandalous and works upon this recognition to punish those who perpetrate such acts while absolution of others requires that punishment others of the offences they did not commit. When a crime occurs, there are often several suspects. The act of punishing liberates some innocent people suspected of committing the crime. In this manner, the punishment of the real criminal has the responsibility of reestablishing ethical balance in society and repairing the dignity of the suspected civilians. However, this is not the case with utilitarian theory because it aims to deliver pleasure and joy to those involved even if it means punishing the innocent. Thus, utilitarianism does seem to be able to protect itself from its inability to comply with demands of punishment which makes it an unfit theory of punishment.

Punishing the innocent is also wrong because it breaches absolute fundamental morality like human rights which demand the absence of punishment to people without offence, a right accredited in many international agreements and leases (Easton & Piper, 2016). For example, article 7 of human rights acts argues that it is not right to indicate a for actions that were not a felony when the individual committed it. That means that authorities should clearly explain what constitutes a criminal offence so that a person knows when they violate the law (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2018). Punishing the innocent is also against the Christian doctrine of morality. The scripture (Proverbs 17:15) also maintains that “acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent, the Lord detests them both” (Salem Web Network, 2019).

One standard objection against utilitarianism is that it may compel people to breach the applicable standards of justice. For example, suppose that somebody has committed an offence, and there is some civil unrest resulting in traumas, raging conflict, as well as some riots. The judge in charge is aware that if he verdicts an innocent person to his death, the town will be stilled, and peace restored. If he sets him free, even greater instability will explode, with more damage coming to the town and its inhabitants. Utilitarianism appears to demand to punish the innocent in certain situations, like these (Austin, 2015). The imperfect legal systems already to convict innocent civilians. Thus, the utilitarian notion of having more innocent human beings suffer for the benefit of securing offenders is not ideal. The desire to let more innocent suffer is the wrong approach in the battle against injustice (Barton, 2018).

The utilitarian theory could admit that there are particular cases of unresolved and unpunished criminals that exist, but still contend that millions of dollars used in addressing instances could be better used in other places, hence punishing the innocent. This argument is problematic since such lenience would enhance incentives to immoral behaviour to those who can perpetrate hard-to-identify offences or have the funds to gain advanced lawyers who would make the investigation costly. One would argue that the capable and prosperous alone are justified by their unethical actions towards others (Kim, 2017).

The utilitarian punishes the innocent while still allowing the culprits to walk free in many cases because of its flawed concept of good. The utilitarian classifies “good” deeds as something which maximizes the specific concept of utilities, most often delight or contentment, while reducing suffering. This notion of good, even though it is attractive in the beginning, is not able to embrace what is right. The practical idea of “good” turns out to be a problem because it neglects the significance of other measurements of “good” besides utility (Kim, 2017).

Therefore, even though it is as uncommon as some argue, the punishment of one innocent individual should offend our perception of justice more than culprit fleeing. A guilty party will still be guilty, besides what their attorneys say. An innocent person punished for crimes they did not perpetrate often lose far more than merely their innocence and that is an injustice nobody should endure.