suan, bea review of related literature

17
A UTILITARIAN APPROACH OF PUNISHMENT IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT ____________________________________ A Review of Related Literature Presented to the College of Law School of Law and Governance University of San Carlos Cebu City, Philippines _______________________________ For Final Requirements in PHILOSOPHY OF LAW ___________________________________ By BEA B. SUAN LLB 1 – EH 407 MC

Upload: bea-suan

Post on 27-Dec-2015

7 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

philosophy

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

A UTILITARIAN APPROACH OF PUNISHMENT IN THE PHILIPPINE

CONTEXT

____________________________________

A Review of Related Literature

Presented to the

College of Law

School of Law and Governance

University of San Carlos

Cebu City, Philippines

_______________________________

For Final Requirements in

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW

___________________________________

By

BEA B. SUAN

LLB 1 – EH 407 MC

Page 2: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This paper presents the review of the literature focusing on punishment and its consequences. In order to answer the query as to the justification of the infliction of punishment to any violators, this paper presents and explains utilitarianism as a principle justifying punishment. Moreover, it is also discussed in order to determine any beneficial outcomes in the imposition of such. Punishment, in here, refers to the capital punishment involving any infliction of moral or physical suffering which governs a certain system. So, to facilitate a specific, comprehensive and systematic understanding of punishment, this review illustrates the penal system in the Philippines.

The chapter will commence with the conceptual basis of punishment, followed by its establishment of the philosophical foundation and justification, by way of presenting the general notion of punishment and utilitarianism. Thereafter, to be more specific, this describes the punishment in the Philippines particularly enumerating as well its various effects to the offender, the offended party if any and to the Philippine society as a whole.

In addition, the discussion is not limited within the utilitarian approach to punishment, but also deals with matters outside the box, wherein throughout the review are enumerations of some criticisms and other principles governing punishment. It is important in order to determine and be enlightened with other principles and explanations justifying punishment.

The outcome of this study is intended to give enlightenment as to the question governing punishment, such as: its justification, purposes and consequences. In the end, this review will be very essential to the further study concerning utilitarianism as well as to the inclusive advantages of punishment in the entire system of the country.

Punishment, in general

Before dealing on with the justifications of punishment, let us first take a look with the concept of punishment, per se. It (punishment) has been a crucial feature of every legal system; however, widespread disagreement exists over the moral principles that can justify its imposition.1

Punishment is commonly defined as a ‘suffering, pain or loss that serves as retribution’ (Webster, 2012) . It covers a very broad subject area and context such as of relationship between parents and children, schools and teachers, schools and students, and teachers and students, employer and employee, government and its citizens and to any other relationship where there is hierarchy of powers. Most importantly, there is punishment because there is a violation of a certain system of rules governing those relationships. It is the breaking of these guiding rules that determines the nature of punishment to be imposed, may it be severe or not.

However, for the objective of this paper, this will narrow down the broad range of punishment and tends to put its focus on the context of criminal punishment, whereby a violator of the law breaks down the rules, by causing crimes and transgressions towards other parties and punishments in any form are inflicted in order to pay off what he has done. Parts of the civil law authorize punitive consequences, but in advanced legal systems, legal punishment is linked to the criminal law.2

Now, bringing down our attention to our core subject, Flew argues that punishment in the sense of a sanction imposed for a criminal offense consists of five elements:

1. It must involve an unpleasantness to the victim.

1 Kent Greenawalt, “Commentary on Punishment” (1983)The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 74, No.2 pp.3432 Ibid,.pp. 346

Page 3: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

2. It must be for an offense, actual or supposed.

3. It must be of an offender, actual or supposed.

4. It must be the work of personal agencies; in other words, it must not be the natural consequence of an action.

5. It must be imposed by an authority or an institution against whose rules the offense has been committed. If this is not the case, then the act is not one of punishment but is simply a hostile act. Similarly, direct action by a person who has no special authority is not properly called punishment, and is more likely to be revenge or an act of hostility.3

So, from the abovementioned elements we can say that punishment is being imposed for those who violate the laws by those in powers and authority. To reiterate, it is not considered punishment if it doesn’t come from an authoritative person or institution. Hence, the concept of punishment denotes power and authority, the infliction of certain pain, loss or suffering either physical or moral in the process of attainment its purpose.

To speak of “purpose”, what could be the purpose of punishment? What are the aims and objectives of those in power? We have known in the usual settings that punishment is merely given in order to correct certain wrongs done by the offender as well as to bring justice to the offended party by compensating the damage being done through their sufferings. But, is this all? Is there any other reason or objective in the imposition of punishments? What are its other justifications? (See Justifications of Punishment)

Punishment in the Philippines

In the Philippine context, our penal system being founded on the classical or juristic thought, well-established the basis of criminal liability which is our human free will and the determination of the penalty or punishment based on the specific and predetermined penalty for the offense committed. (Boado, 2012) Furthermore, standing in this classical theory of Criminal Law, we can deduce that the penal system of the Philippines promotes fairness and justice through the proportionate imposition of the penalty in accordance with the crime. Thus, the emphasis is on the offense and not on the offender.4

Our system has provided appropriate punishment in every crime committed. For instance, homicide is penalized with reclusion temporal and other offenses with other degree of penalties. These penalties as provided in the Revised Penal Code also talks about hierarchy. We have the capital punishments, afflictive, correctional and light felonies together with accessory penalties.

Varied punishments and sanctions are mandated to be imposed in every transgression committed. Administrative, Civil or Criminal Offenses, they all have a corresponding sanctions imposed in every misdoings in the duties and responsibilities of those in power as well as violations done by every citizens. These punishments are not established for the purposes of imposing punishments only to the citizens but as well as to all other persons or even foreigners sojourning within the territory. The Philippine penal system binds every Filipinos and people whether in or out of its jurisdiction as it is characterized by generality, territoriality and prospectivity principle. The different punishments inscribed in our system involves neither physical nor moral suffering, rather it involves more a restriction and prohibition in some of our constitutional rights. What

3Cited in the book of Banks Chapter 5 The Purpose of Criminal Punishment pp. 103-104, 20044 Boado, L. D. (2004). Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code.

Page 4: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

determines the degree and gravity of the punishment is the number of years of restriction and prohibition. However, in matters of capital offenses, capital punishment is to be imposed to a certain individual. The capital punishment in the Philippines is death penalty, but with Republic Act No. 9346, the imposition of death penalty was now prohibited, but instead provided for the imposition of penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death. (Reyes, 2012) Hence, one who commits a crime, and such is a capital offense punishable by death penalty will now be serving only the penalty of imprisonment and not to the extent of taking one’s life. Under Republic Act No.7659, the duration of reclusion perpetua is now 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.5

In view of the foregoing punishments, especially of the supposed death penalty, what could be the purpose or reason in the imposition of such kind of punishments? What could be the pros and cons of these punishments in the life of the stakeholders in every crimes being committed? Or, to make it short,” what justifies the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines. These, we will answer subsequent to the discussion on the Justifications of Punishment.

Justification of Punishment

Right after dealing with the basic concept of punishment as well as the penal system of the Philippines being our subject, it is proper to understand and to give answer to the questions being raised in the previous part of the study. The purposes, reasons, and consequences of the imposition of punishment (capital punishment) altogether provide the justification of punishment.

Because punishment involves pain or deprivation that people wish to avoid, its intentional imposition by the state requires justification.6 Infliction of punishment is an action or a class of actions. We evaluate such an action in terms of either the consequences it yields or the intention of the agent who inflicts punishment.7Various works have proved that there are two theories that justify punishment: the Retributive and the Utilitarian theories.

RETRIBUTIVE APPROACH

Let’s tackle first the Retributive Approach in justifying punishment. This theory involves revenge and retribution. This sentencing system focuses primarily on the seriousness and characteristics of the criminal act rather than the offender.8Moreover, (Murtagh, 2005) state that concepts of desert and justice occupy a central place in most retributive theories: in accordance with the demands of justice, wrongdoers are thought to deserve to suffer, so punishment is justified on the grounds that it gives to wrongdoers what they deserve.

In addition, under this theory, offenders are punished for criminal behavior because they deserve punishment. According to the retributivist, human beings have free will and are capable of making rational decisions. An offender who is insane or otherwise

5 Reyes, L. B. (2012). The Revised Penal Code. Manila: Rex Publishing Company.6Punishment - Moral Justifications And Legal Punishmenthttp://law.jrank.org/pages/1905/Punishment-Moral-justifications-legal-punishment.html7JitendraNathSarker, Justification of Punishment, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthSark.htm

8 Philosophies of Punishment, pp. 15-16 http://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/soda-filozofijas-3.pdf

Page 5: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

incompetent should not be punished. However, a person who makes a conscious choice to upset the balance of society should be punished.9

UTILITARIAN APPROACH

Another viewpoint being made in the justification for punishment is the most known principle of utilitarianism. But before we proceed with the discussion of the utilitarian approach of punishment, it is appropriate to give first background of this utilitarian thinking through the perspective of the proponents of this thought: Bentham and Mill. They provide and established the foundation of this thought, thus, it emerged as one counterpart of retributive justice as justification of the infliction of punishment. Nevertheless, we will present not only those classical thinking but will also give light for the contemporary thinking based on utilitarian grounds.

Jonathan Bennett(Bennett, 2005) ,in his discussion of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill well- discussed that the doctrine that the basis of morals is utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By ‘happiness’ is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness’ is meant pain and the lack of pleasure.

Also, Jeremy Bentham's account of punishment rests on the broader social ethic that he also developed: the principle of utility. Social measures are to be judged, he maintains, according to the degree to which they promote aggregate satisfaction.(Hirsch,1992)In his perspective, “Pleasures then, and the avoidance of pains, are the ends that the legislator has in view.”In Chapter VII Bentham says, “The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding… In proportion as an act tends to disturb that happiness, in proportion as the tendency of it is pernicious, will be the demand it creates for punishment.”10 Being such, the imposition of punishment shows that it was meant for the consequence of pleasure rather than pain. The utilitarian perspective according to him, is justified because the infliction of punishment produces some sort of utility or it promotes general welfare or happiness.

More than that, he contends that “… By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.” 11

On the other hand, Mill (Mill, 1863) in his work and in support with the previous proponent stated that, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

However, this classical thinking pursues up to the twentieth century developments. Out from this one, different variety of utilitarianism exists, such as ideal utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism, two-level utilitarianism and the preference utilitarianism. These varieties may have different contentions, but being founded in a

9Punishment - Moral Justifications And Legal Punishmenthttp://law.jrank.org/pages/1905/Punishment-Moral-justifications-legal-punishment.html10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Jeremy_Bentham11 Ibid.,

Page 6: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

utilitarian thinking, they have the same denominator that they are geared towards the greatest happiness and maximized utility.12

Thereafter understanding the basic knowledge regarding these two theories which justify punishment, this paper will now focus into the utilitarian perspective in justifying punishment. We will limit our discussion only in this theory rather on dwelling with the two theories for the purpose of this paper is to present only a review based on the positive implications of punishment. Nevertheless, we are not saying that retributive theory has nothing positive consequence in it. In fact, because retributivist approach is backward looking -- what justifies a punishment is the fact that the person being punished did something wrong, has come to produce the positive effect on the part of the offended parties.13 Since, this theory holds that the perpetrator deserves with the kind of punishment fit with the crime committed, it gives best justice on the part of the offended parties. Punishment in here served as a compensation of what they have done, but in accordance to the level and degree of the crime being committed. We’ll move on with the utilitarian approach to punishment because this study is not meant to dwell in to the difference between the two theories of justification, rather to present the positive implication of every punishment.

Moving on, the utilitarian approach to the nature of punishment requires that the general justification of punishment should be determined by reference to the beneficial or detrimental consequences of the practice alone.(Charvet)So, in order to begin our analysis with the consequences of punishment, it is essential to determine first the way or the relationship between the laws/ rules and the people. Charvet have identified two classes of theories in order to identify what it is for the people to follow a rule, is it either rule- following or a simple habitual behaviour? It is his contention in his work that the thinking that people have in dealing with the laws determines the beneficial or detrimental consequences of every rule. If people simply follows rule as a habit, where the great majority behave in the same way, there is no reason to criticize the breach of rules he undertake. On the other hand, if people are rule- following, criticisms to the breach of rules is justified and punishment is justified as well.

Moreover, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Hence, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. These has been the contention of Sarker , that he noted that the term punishment may be understood in two different senses (i) Punishment in general and (ii) specific case of punishment .Punishment in general can obviously be justified (in the traditional sense of the term) on utilitarian grounds, (though justification is not necessarily enquired in general ). It is the justification of particular infliction of pain (or punishment) that can be enquired of. While in its specific sense, the term punishment is used to mean an actual infliction of suffering. It is a particular action --- not a class of actions. Hence, here we can deduce that punishment in general is classified by utilitarian grounds since it is the general welfare that is being anticipated in every punishment.

In addition to this clarification, the most significant elucidation of utilitarianism as an approach justifying punishment is that it is "consequentialist" in nature. It recognizes that punishment has consequences for both the offender and society and holds that the total good produced by the punishment should exceed the total evil. In other words, punishment should not be unlimited.14

12 Ibid.,13The Utilitarian and Retributivist Approach to Punishmenthttp://voices.yahoo.com/the-utilitarian-retributivist-approach-punishment-8692135.html

1414http://law.jrank.org/pages/1905/Punishment-Moral-justifications-legal-punishment.html

Page 7: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

Also, according to Kevin Murtagh in his work Punishment, “When attempting to determine whether a punishment is justifiable, utilitarians will attempt to anticipate the likely consequences of carrying out the punishment. If punishing an offender would most likely produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness compared with the other available options (not taking any action, publicly denouncing the offender, etc.), then the punishment is justified. If another available option would produce a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness, then that option should be chosen and punishment is unjustified.15

Being consequentialist in nature, it is also important to determine first the purpose in the imposition of punishment in every society and subsequently identify the beneficial or utilitarian consequences or effects in the infliction of punishment.

According to Julian Alexander (Alexander, 1992) the earlier theories of punishment for crime involved the motives of vengeance, retaliation, retribution or compensation-at first "in kind" or at a fixed scale-and of deterrence against repetition by the criminal or imitation by others. As these motives in their several combinations have moved society in its treatment of criminals, we find that the punishments have varied in kind and severity.

To comprehensively grasp the utilitarian perspective of punishment, let us describe each of the goals or motives of punishment, and discuss along the effects or beneficial consequences of punishment.

In the article Punishment- Moral Justifications and Legal Punishment,16 it has enumerated the beneficial motives and consequences of punishment. To identify, these are the following:

A. General deterrence. Knowledge that punishment will follow crime deters people from committing crimes, thus reducing future violations of right and the unhappiness and insecurity they would cause.

In addition, the most common deterrence-based approach to punishment maintains that punishment is justified just in case punishing an offender would deter other potential criminals from committing crimes in the future. The most significant limitation of such accounts is that deterrence as a rationale for punishment cannot stand alone. There are two quiteobvious reasons for this. The first we might call the ‘‘problem of torture.’Deterrence theorists, like everyone else, believe there are restrictions on what it is permissible to do to another human being. But if torture deters, on what grounds will deterrence theorists rule it out? A second problem we might call the ‘‘problem of responsibility.’Deterrence theorists, like everyone else, would limit punishment to the guilty. But once again, if ‘‘punishing’’the innocent deters, on what grounds will the deterrence theorist rule it out of bounds?(Finkelstein,2005)

B.  Norm reinforcement

Practices of punishment can thus reinforce community norms by affecting the dictates of individual consciences. Serious criminal punishment represents society's strong condemnation of what the offender has done, and performs a significant role in moral education.

15 Kevin, Murtagh Punishment 200516Punishment - Moral Justifications And Legal Punishment http://law.jrank.org/pages/1905/Punishment-Moral-justifications-legal-punishment.html

Page 8: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

C. Individual deterrence. A primary utilitarian purpose for punishment involves various actions designed to decrease the physical capacity of a person to commit criminal or deviant acts. The actual imposition of punishment creates fear in the offender that if he repeats his act, he will be punished again. For the utilitarian, more severe punishment of repeat offenders is warranted partly because the first penalty has shown itself ineffective from the standpoint of individual deterrence.

D. Incapacitation and other forms of risk management. Imprisonment temporarily puts the convicted criminal out of general circulation, and the death penalty does so permanently. These punishments physically prevent persons of dangerous disposition from acting upon their destructive tendencies.

E. Reform. Punishment may help to reform the criminal so that his wish to commit crimes will be lessened, and perhaps so that he can be a happier, more useful person.

F. Vengeance. The utilitarian, in contrast to the retributivist, does not suppose that wrongful acts intrinsically deserve a harsh response, but utilitarians recognize that victims, their families and friends, and some members of the public will feel frustrated if no such response is forthcoming.

Now, that we have known the purposes and outcomes of punishment in a utilitarian approach, we are able to understood and grasp that imposition of punishments are justified through its consequences. The utilitarian approach and view to punishment implies to us that, far from our common perception that punishment is only given in order to compensate the crime committed by a person, there are some positive outcomes one could derive out of punishment more than the benefits the offended party gets during punishment. Above, was the proof that the imposition of punishment, is at all times has a benefit for everybody.

However, despite the utility we get out from punishment. Despite with the efficient outcomes we derive through utilitarian views, there are still many criticisms in this approach. Before we proceed into the assessment of capital punishment in the Philippines, as our main context, it is proper to elucidate some contentions of the critics of utilitarianism.

In the preceding parts, we have been acquainted with the counterpart view of utilitarianism- the retributive theory. Some of the critics were also founded from this school of thought. First in line, was Kant. (This) idea is strikingly captured by Immanuel Kant's claim that an island society about to disband should still execute its last murderer. In Kant's view, a failure to punish those who deserve it leaves guilt upon the society; according to G. W. F. Hegel, punishment honours the criminal as a rational being and gives him what it is his right to have. Based on the said theory, he contends that practices of punishment are justified because society should render harm to wrongdoers; only those who are guilty of wrongdoing should be punished; and the severity of punishment should be proportional to the degree of wrongdoing, an approach crudely reflected in the idea of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."17

Another objection being brought about against utilitarianism is the thought that utilitarianism approach is being hedonistic. According to this, there is more to life than pleasure: it has the knowledge, virtue and others. They criticize utilitarianism for being o much indulge in self-pleasure rather than looking into other significant and beneficial things in life.

17 Ibid.,

Page 9: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

More than that, another unique perspective was shown in the Unintentional Punishment (Kolber, 2012), Kolber discussed that those who attempt to justify only the purposeful inflictions of punishment cannot possibly justify real-world punishment practices such as incarceration because they fail to justify all of the non-purposeful inflictions that are necessarily associated with it. What theorists have not adequately recognized is that real-world punishments involve both intentional and unintentional harms to even a single offender. He further discussed the justification- symmetry principle. According to him, “what I call the justification-symmetry principle provides a (not necessarily exclusive) test of whether some punishment-related conduct requires justification. The principle says that if you or I must have a justification for risking or causing some harm, then so must any person who risks or causes the same kind of harm in the name of punishment.Theories of punishment that address only intentional aspects of punishment are woefully incomplete(emphasis supplied).

Although Kolber does not tackled much into the consequences of punishment, he nevertheless bring forth the idea that if a certain justification addresses only intentional aspects of punishment , then it would be incomplete. Hence, if utilitarian justification of punishment if it only talks about intentional punishments, then, it did not absolutely justify the imposition of such.

The above contentions of Kant, the objection of utilitarianism being hedonistic as well as the discussion of justification are just some of the direct or indirect criticisms thrown against the utilitarian perspective of punishment. Other contentions could be discussed in separate discussions which will comprehensively converse these criticisms

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (DEATH PENALTY) IN THE PHILIPPINES

We have discussed in the previous parts the punishments or the penal system as a whole in the Philippines. Its philosophical foundations and the specific punishments were also explained and enumerated. It is our basic knowledge that before the abolition, there really has the death penalty as the imposable punishment for capital or corporal crimes being committed. To be more specific, lethal injection is the one referred to be our death penalty.

Our penal system lies in the philosophical ground of retributive foundation, wherein it recognizes that everyone acts in their own free will, that is why, punishment is deservingly given proportionately to those who committed crimes. These may be in a retributive side, but it is inevitable and we cannot close the door of a utilitarian perspective. The abovementioned purposes/ consequences are also apparent and applicable to the effects of capital punishment into the citizens of the country. And, In order for a punishment to be justified, it must satisfy at least one of these criteria, where any one of which is necessary but not a sufficient condition.18

Although some contends that capital punishment is not deterrent for (the commission of other) capital crimes, still, punishments (will) tend to have more of a deterrent effect to the extent that they are promptly and consistently employed.”  19 Capital punishment has its positive and negative implications to the offender, offended and even to the whole society. There may be a lot of reasons for or against the execution of death penalty, but, the general population or the majority’s wide range of belief affects the execution of this kind of punishment. 20 Apparently, capital punishment lies in both ends of these two theories of punishment. Over-all, it is difficult to clearly and concisely

18 The Purposes of Capital Punishment http://home.page.ch/pub/[email protected]/punishment.html19 Punishment, http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Punishment.htm20 The Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment http://www.philforhumanity.com/Capital_Punishment.html

Page 10: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

justify capital punishment because the question concerning the deterrent effects of capital punishments, to be hanging. From the justifications, we can even deduce that the abolition of our death penalty may be due to the excessive application and reliance to retributive system, where penalties are being given according to the gravity of the crimes being committed. More than that, the basic rationale for the abolition of death penalty is because of the least utility we could get out of this capital punishment.

CONCLUSION

We have come to know punishment, its cause, motives/ purpose as well as consequences. We also encountered the two dominant theories justifying punishment. Dwelling on with the utilitarian perspective, we have come to understood far beyond the philosophical basis of our penal system, that there is a beneficial consequences and a positive implications we could derive out of every punishment given by the government.

This paper did not reject the notion of retributive theory in justifying punishment; it merely focuses on the positive aspect through the discussion in the various areas concerning punishment and utilitarian approach.

Standing on the utilitarian grounds , imposition of punishments are justified because these only geared towards the achievement of its objective which could be to deter future crimes, incapacitate offenders and prevent them for future same undertakings, a rehabilitation and a reformation of the offender. Its consequentialist and prospective view brings out the positive and essential benefits we derive out from punishment.

Page 11: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature

Bibliography

Journals and Books

Alexander, J. (1992). The Philosophy of Punishment. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 235-250.

Bennett, J. (2005). Utilitarianism By: John Stuart Mill.

Boado, L. D. (2012). Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code pp.9.

Charvet, J. (n.d.). Criticism and Punishment. Oxford Journal, 573-579.

Finkelstein, C. (2005). A Contractarian Approach to Punishment. In E. b. Edmundson., The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (pp. pp. 207-218). Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Hirsch, A. v. ( 1992). Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment. Chicago Journals Vol.16V, 55-98.

Kolber, A. (2012). Unintentional Punishment. Cambridge Journal 18, pp. 1-29.

Mill, J. (1863). Utilitarianism. Batoche Books Limited.

Murtagh, K. (2005, July 24). Punishment.

Reyes, L. B. (2012). The Revised Penal Code pp. 621. Manila: Rex Publishing Company.

Webster, M. (2012).

Internet Sources & Others

Chapter 5 The Purpose of Criminal Punishment pp. 103-104, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Jeremy_Bentham

Jitendra Nath Sarker, Justification of Punishment, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthSark.htm

Kent Greenawalt, “Commentary on Punishment” (1983)The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 74, No.2 pp.343

Philosophies of Punishment, pp. 15-16 http://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/soda-filozofijas-3.pdf

Punishment, http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Punishment.htm

Punishment - Moral Justifications And Legal Punishment

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1905/Punishment-Moral-justifications-legal-punishment.html

The Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment http://www.philforhumanity.com/Capital_Punishment.html

The Purposes of Capital Punishment http://home.page.ch/pub/[email protected]/punishment.html

The Utilitarian and Retributivist Approach to Punishment http://voices.yahoo.com/the-utilitarian-retributivist-approach-punishment-8692135.html

Page 12: Suan, Bea Review of Related Literature