Hampton thinks that punishment can be justified only if it benefits the person being punished; she thinks we can never harm another person and that, in particular, we cannot interfere with people’s autonomy. Given these beliefs, punishment poses an obvious problem for her.
She proposes the education theory as a rationale for punishment that fits her ethical assumptions. The idea is that punishment is justified if and only if it gets the wrongdoer “to reflect on the moral reasons for that barrier’s [the law’s prohibition] existence so that he will make the decision to reject the prohibited action for moral reasons, rather than for the self-interested reason of avoiding pain” (1984, 212).
Furthermore, she holds that,
“on the moral education view it is incorrect to regard simple deterrence as the aim of punishment; rather, to state it succinctly, the view maintains that punishment is justified as a way to prevent wrongdoing insofar as it can teach both wrongdoers and the public at large the moral reasons for choosing not to perform an offense.” (1984, 213)
Hampton regards deterrence as something that society needs but she does not regard society’s need for deterrence as a justification of punishment. (This struck me as a debatable assumption.)
Her idea is that we use deterrence to control both non-human and human animals. But people are different than other animals because they have the ability to understand why barriers have been put in the way of their doing what they want to do. Hampton thinks this ability should govern how we treat people: we should try to make them understand why they are being punished and not just deter them from committing further crimes. A punishment system that relies solely on deterrence would treat people as if they were things that they are not: non-human animals who are incapable of reasoning.
Retributivist theories of punishment hold that people who wrong others deserve to be harmed themselves. That is the purpose of punishment: giving people the harm they deserve.
Hampton, however, does not believe that it is ever acceptable to harm someone. She agrees with Plato and Jesus Christ that “the only thing human beings ‘deserve’ in this life is good” and “that no matter what evil a person has committed, no one is justified in doing further evil to her” (1984, 237). (Although Brandon said that he thinks her interpretation of the passage from the Bible is wrong; you’ve been warned!)
The education theory of punishment is supposed to explain how punishment can meet this standard: it is good for people to learn to be better.
At the same time, she believes, punishment will still be deserved: it will be applied only to the guilty and it will communicate that their behavior is intolerable and wrong.
Isha asked about moral disagreements. How is a society supposed to educate its members about morality when it contains a diverse array of moral beliefs? We know Hampton thinks that there is an objective morality, so I suppose she doesn’t think there can be a significant range of legitimate disagreements about morality. I also suspect, but cannot prove, that most of the criminal law overlaps with moral requirements that are fairly uncontroversial: prohibitions on theft, fraud, and force, for example. If I’m right, maybe it’s a manageable problem.
Sneha asked why education isn’t just deterrence. What are they being taught other than that there will be punishment in response to crime?
Rafael said something similar, that deterrence itself is educational. It teaches the public at large that there is a price for crime.
I think Hampton wants to say in response that these things are true but that there is more to it. We punish to make the point that we’re serious when we say things like “murder is wrong.” The lesson is supposed to be both that you will run a high risk of punishment if you murder someone and also that murder is wrong.
Bryce, Dan, and Zach raised questions about the point of punishing people who already know that what they’re doing is wrong. Maybe I commit crimes out of economic necessity. I know it’s wrong, but it’s my best option, so I do it. Is there anything else for me to learn?
Emily suggested that the course of education would have to be circular. The only people who are open to learning anything from punishment are the ones who agree that their punishment is justified. But they’re also the ones who are least likely to need to be taught something. The ones who need education, she suggested, aren’t open to it.
Finally Zach noted that victims are left out of the story if punishment is about education. Punishment serves the offender, not the victim. I said in response that this is the way the criminal justice system works: victims have very little role. Crimes are offenses against the state, not against the people who suffer from them. It’s one reason why our system of punishment strikes people as unsatisfying. (Which isn’t to say that giving them satisfaction would be a good thing. I don’t have to ask you to imagine how that might go.)
These are the points that you should know or have an opinion about from today’s class.