Abstract

Despite general theoretical and practical agreement about the fact that punishment is an appropriate response to criminal behavior, debate continues to rage over the proper philosophical justification for such a practice. The classic theories of utilitarianism and retributivism have been joined by more recent justifications based on rehabilitation, restitution, and righteous feelings of vengeance. While lawyers and policy makers sometimes shun such intellectual exercises as irrelevant to "real world" applications of the law, the choice of a particular justification of punishment should not be disregarded in this way. Different theories entail different answers to questions about punishment and its application—for whom, under what circumstances, and in what manner punishment is appropriate. In this essay, I will discuss one fairly recent theory of punishment—the moral education theory suggested by Jean Hampton. In her paper, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, she offers what she considers a sketch of the view that punishment is justified as a benefit to the criminal. In what follows, I will lay out her view and clarify what I take to be an area of tension within the theory. I will then defend the (modified) theory against a number of criticisms which might be raised against it. Finally, I will offer an application of the moral education theory to two areas of contemporary debate within the law. In so doing, I hope to convince the reader that the moral education theory provides a solid theoretical ground for the justification of punishment and an appropriate response to some difficult areas within current sentencing policy.

How to Cite