An Essay on Contemporary Utilitarianism Justifications of Punishment; from General Deterrence to General Prevention

According to penal utilitarianism, punishment is justified because it results in the greatest final good for the greatest number of members of society. The meaning of good here is the goals that ultimately lead to the reduction of crime. In this current article which is kind of a fundamental theoretical and descriptive in terms of purpose, and the information is collected using books and articles, we analysis seven utilitarianism justifications of punishment five of them are in the "general deterrence" category and two are in the "crime prevention" category. According to general deterrence theorists, the punishment is justified because the victim has the right to defend himself/herself and punishment is a means of achieving this right (the theory of Automatic Retaliation Device), Punishment redistributes the same harm (the theory of distributive justice) or re-imposes a possibly more severe harm that the offender has inflicted on the victim (the theory of weak retributivism), Punishment is caused by violating the duty of the offender to not harm others (theory of the duty to protect the victim) or is justified due to the capacity to convince people not to commit a crime (theory of harm reduction). According to crime prevention theories, imposing a disproportionate and more than deserved punishment on dangerous criminals who are likely to commit multiple crimes, to recidivism (additional/disproportionate punishment theory) or due to strengthening the legal awareness of society members and Strengthening the rule of law in them is justified (positive general prevention theory). Fundamental criticisms are made on each of these theories that cause the justification of punishment to face inadequacies.