Kant on Punishment

While some take a utilitarian stance on punishment, grounded on the idea that punishment can be justified by the consequences it will produce, Immanuel Kant strongly opposes this idea. Immanuel Kant goes into detail on why a retributivist perspective on punishment is the only justifiable way to punish a crime. To do so, Kant first clarifies a few distinctions in the type of punishment he is referring too. First, this does not apply to a head of state, one can not punish but rather withdraw themselves from his domain in the instance in which a crime is committed. This is because the right to punish is a right of a ruler against his subject (Kant, 331). The next important clarification is that there is a difference between public and private crimes. The one he is concerned with discussing are public crimes, these are crimes that specifically endanger the commonwealth, not just an individual (Kant, 331).

In discussing these crimes Kant prescribes that punishment inflicted by a court can never be inflicted as a means to promote some other good. This would deny a court from making decisions of punishment based on the fact they can benefit a criminal himself or a civil society (Kant, 331). The punishment of a criminal can only be inflicted because of the crime he has committed. Kant claims the principle of punishment to be a categorical imperative, meaning this is an unconditional moral obligation. He asserts that without retributive punishment there is no justice, thus there is no value to life at all. His logic follows a golden rule, whatever evil one inflicts you are also inflicting upon yourself. This means that in all cases a punishment must fit the crime, for that is the evil you have put into the world and this will be returned back to you. Kant focuses on the proposal that one who commits murder must die. In his eyes there is not other substitute that could possibly satisfy justice (Kant, 333). While this seems harsh, Kant sees life as an irreplaceable thing, that can not be substituted or similar to any other thing. Thus, no punishment could ever equal the loss of life.

While many utilitarian theories are backed by the idea that a punishment that has no beneficial consequences is of no use, Kant warns us to reject that entire notion.While I am skeptical of blatantly ignoring the positive good that certain punishments can provide such as rehabilitation services and services to teach social morality, Kant makes a powerful point to justify this assertion. Kant explains, “For a man can never be treated as merely a means to the purposes of another or be put among the objects of rights to things” (Kant, 331). This argument in particular is interesting to me because the statement itself I find myself in agreement with. One should not be able to use someone else’s life to promote some other ends, it is not within our rights to use someone in that way. I think the logic that Kant’s argument is based upon makes sense because he respects the autonomy and importance of human life and individuality, it does seem wrong to use another for their own purposes. However, I think his perspective of a punishment being based on the crime in every circumstance is too rigid. While Kant see’s this as a binding rule for all circumstances, I think to ignore the consequences of certain punishments would ignore considerations of intent. While Kant argues in this work that a man who kills for noble causes or for selfish causes should both be face with murder, I find this too strong of a framework. While I think this fits well as a general rule to consider in evaluating punishment, I think that there should be more factors considered.

Kant, Immanuel. (1991). The Metaphysics of Morals. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.