\documentstyle[12pt,doublespace]{article}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\title{Philosophy and Public Affairs, Paper \#2}
\author{Greg Hudson}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\leftmargin}{.5in}
Thesis: Jeremy Bentham would disagree with Perry's statement, on the
grounds that we should use capital punishment not to subtract from the
happiness of the offender but to add to the happiness of the
community.
\addtolength{\rightmargin}{.5in}
\end{center}
\bigskip
I intend to contrast Bentham's view of the appropriate reasons for
capital punishment with those exhibited by Perry's statement.  Bentham
claims that the appropriate use of any kind of punishment is as a
deterrent, while Perry's statement implies that the appropriate use of
capital punishment is to give criminals what they deserve.

Bentham's chief objection to Perry's statement would be that it
implies that capital punishment should be used for its own sake---that
is, it implies that capital punishment is appropriate in certain
circumstances even if it has no positive practical effects.  We can
see the basis for this objection in Bentham's statement, ``But all
punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is
evil.''\footnote{Jeremy Bentham, {\em An Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation}, excerpted in Jeffrie G. Murphy,
ed., {\em Punishment and Rehabilitation}.  2nd ed.  Belmont:
Wadsworth, 1985.  p. 58.} By claiming that all punishment is in itself
wrong, even deserved punishment, Bentham rejects the notion that
capital punishment can be appropriate for its own sake.

Bentham would argue that instead, we must establish that capital
punishment has a positive effect on the community as a whole that
exceeds the mischief the punishment causes toward the criminal.  In
practice, this means that to be appropriate, capital punishment should
act as a deterrent to other criminals, both against committing any
crime at all, and against committing a capital crime instead of a
lesser crime.

For the most part, Bentham and Perry would agree that capital
punishment should only be used to punish the most serious of crimes.
Perry would justify this by saying that only those who have committed
the most serious crimes deserved to be executed.  Bentham, by
contrast, would justify it by saying that the law should reserve
capital punishments for serious crimes in order to deter criminals
from choosing capital crimes over less serious crimes.

In certain situations, Bentham and Perry might disagree over whether
capital punishment is appropriate.  Bentham states that we might
consider ``the extraordinary value of the services of some one
delinquent''\footnote{Ibid., p. 62} in determining whether a
punishment is appropriate.  For example, Bentham might believe that a
great author who might otherwise be executed for his or her crimes
should instead be imprisoned for life so that he or she would be able
to write, and thus contribute to the community.  It is not likely that
Perry would award any special consideration to such people, unless he
believes that criminals who have contributed to the community deserve
execution less than those who have not.

In sum, Bentham would object to Perry's statement, claiming that the
``abstract debate'' over whether capital punishment is a deterrent,
far from being irrelevant to the question of whether it is
appropriate, is in fact a central concern.
\end{document}

