Category: Punishment

Abstract

This essay is about how to best justify punishment. I will explain and review a few different theories on punishment and then evaluate them, revealing which I think is the best (or most morally justified). Consequentialist punishments usually issue a great benefit to the majority of people involved, because of its potential to develop society. However consequentialist punishments, such as deterrence, are sometimes too harsh on the offender and is therefore sometimes unfair. Despite the issues with consequentialism, I still believe it is the best method to justify punishment. However, some more theories regarding punishment will also be discussed. I will consider the victim, offender, society as a whole, and the offense committed when presenting my ideas.

Introduction

There are 2 main theories used to decide whether actions are morally right or morally wrong – consequentialism and deontology. These concepts can convey reasons for whether a crime can be considered wrong, or right. Both theories justify a person`s actions, or punishment, taking into account, the crime being committed. When justifying punishment, we can reflect on which method of punishment is more effective and morally acceptable for the community, individual, or society.

One of the theories is Consequentialism. As the name suggests, it is the belief that the consequences of one`s behavior are the basis for judgment on the rightness or wrongness of that behavior (page 9 of the handbook). Consequentialists believe that whether an action is right or wrong depends on the results the act produces, the better the results of the act, the better the act is. Examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism (BBC bitesize). John Stuart Mill who agrees with this theory declared that ‘Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (wikia.org). This theory is linked with moral hedonism, it argues that acts are only morally justified when they result in pleasure as a substitute for pain. To put this into perspective, a consequentialist would say that killing 1 person is more justified than killing 2 (or more) people since it would result in just 1 person dying in place of 2 (or more) people dying (wikia.org). Many people will believe that both scenarios are morally wrong, despite this a consequentialist would argue that the action which has the least negative effects would be more acceptable.

One of the consequentialist theories on punishment is deterrence. Deterrence proposes that punishment is granted to halt wrongdoing. The key figure of the deterrence theory is fear. It aims to hinder wrongdoings by creating fear, the objective is to set an illustration for the society or community by punishing the criminal (law times journal). Deterrence is the thought that society may diminish its wrongdoing rates as a result of being frightened and cautioned, it is a method of punishment that considers the effect of crime on the community. This joins to consequentialism because it is a strategy used to avoid individuals from committing wrongdoings by educating them on the result of their actions.

The theory focuses on persuading people to not commit crimes so that they don`t end up like the wrongdoer being punished. The concept of a brief sharp shock is an advantage of deterrence; using a disproportionate penalty could discourage society from potentially offending. There’s also the utilitarian claim put forward by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, which states that one person’s suffering may prevent the suffering of many others, or that one person’s pleasure may bring pleasure to many others.

However, there is an argument on disproportionality, that the penalty should be proportional to the crime; deterrence is more extreme. As a result, a harsh sentence may cause offenders to get angry making them likely to re-offend. There are also ethical concerns about using people (in this case prisoners) to deliver a message to society.

On the other hand, Deontology is the belief that the morality of an action ought to be founded on whether that activity itself is correct or wrong under a progression of rules, instead of dependent on the outcomes of the action (page 9 of the handbook). Immanuel Kant was the first great philosopher to describe deontological concepts. Kant believed that nothing is good without qualification, except goodwill. He argued that good will is one that chooses to behave in accordance with the moral law and out of respect for the moral law and not out of natural desire. An example of deontology would be categoric imperative. It states that: you (society) should act only according to the rules and then it will become a general rule (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 1785). The categorical imperative commands that one should act only on universal principles, principles that could be followed by all rational people, since rules are, more or less, principles of influence (new encyclopedia). Morality, according to Kant, is founded on our sound judgment. Therefore, if we believe an act is right, we ought to desire it to become a law for all of society to follow. Deontology advocates the principle that we should not behave in any manner that we might deem wrong for someone else in similar circumstances; rather than our assumptions on whether the implications of an act are good or negative, our behavior should reflect and embody our moral rules and standards.

Retribution is one of the key goals of deontology, which is to justify punishment. The goal is for wrongdoers to suffer in an exact proportion to how they treated their victim; punishment here balances any benefits that criminals receive after committing a crime (page 17 of the handbook). In a moral sense, it is good if a person receives the punishment, he or she deserves. However, inflicting a more severe penalty on someone than would be appropriate for the crime is immoral. The concept of retribution is that a person’s punishment should be strictly proportional to the offense he committed.

For example, a person who stole money would face punishment in the form of restitution, while a person who committed murder would face either the death penalty or life in jail. Either alternative results in the loss of life. This type of punishment is referred to as deontological since it focuses on the person who has committed the immoral act rather than considering the societal repercussions and long-term solutions to the crime issue. For those affected by the crime, such as the victim and their families, retribution provides a more intimate form of justice.

Consequentialism and deontology both have different ways of justifying punishment. Deontological methods, such as retribution, serve to provide immediate justice for the victim, and consequentialist methods, such as social incapacitation, support society by protecting them and reducing crime overall; this is accomplished by criminal rehabilitation methods. The question of whether consequentialist or deontological principles are more successful in achieving the goals of punishment, and which method is more morally justified, is a popular debate that emerges as a result of these two opposing theories.

Discussion

A few forms of punishment include deterrence, rehabilitation, restoration, retribution, incapacitation, and societal protection. We must examine which type of punishment is the most effective in obtaining the desired results. For instance, one of the primary goals of punishment is to create justice, and many people believe that retribution is the only way to achieve justice because it delivers direct justice for the victim and people who were harmed by a crime.

In addition, some people believe that natural law is the permanent source of our beliefs, according to Thomas Aquinas (the founder of the natural law doctrine), Our morals are embedded in our minds, and they are established by nature, God, or a ‘spiritual source.’

The instinct of self-defense and the emotion of sympathy is a naturalistic explanation for why humans desire justice and retribution. It is natural for us to resent those who have wronged us and to seek revenge against those who have wronged others with whom we sympathize with (J.S. Mill). Another motive for retributive punishment is the pleasure of authority over another human being, as well as their suffering. The desire for safety pushes society to accept punishment and create a compromise between lawful and unlawful behaviors, thus establishing influence over society.

Although the deontological view of punishment gives a direct and personal type of justice, it ignores society’s overall gain. Retribution is based on the notion of ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ (Lex Talionis), which states that people get what they deserve. This equality concept is supported by Immanuel Kant, who says, ‘the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to one side than the other.’ To balance the scales, it is thought necessary to impose punishment on an offender based on what they ‘deserve’ after a crime has been committed. Many people would wonder what exactly an offender deserves in this situation. Some people believe in the ‘eye for an eye’ theory, which argues that criminals should be treated in the same manner as the victim. The concept, according to JS Mill, molds society’s perception of justice, and it is natural to want to punish those who harm others (page 30 of the handbook).

For example, a guy and a woman are both accused of murdering someone (separately), but their motives are different. The woman killed them for pleasure, while the man killed them because his own child was being held captive. Considering this, each person’s penalty would be determined by the judge’s values rather than the law. To excuse the man’s murder of a person, the judge would have to believe that the life of the child is more significant than the life of the person who died.

Is justice served if the judge decides to sentence this particular man to death? The victim’s relatives and friends may experience a sense of justice and equality as the culprit is punished, but this feeling is only brief. Therefore, retribution is being used as a kind of revenge for the victim’s close relatives. Apart from the momentary spiteful delight, nothing else positive occurs, signaling that crime rates have not decreased and that punishment has only benefited a few people directly. This, in my opinion, renders this sort of punishment immoral because it does not reflect high moral values. For instance, forgiveness, which is encouraged by many faiths and religions around the world, is absolutely disregarded during this type of punishment.

As a result, retribution contradicts the concept of seeking justice rather than mere satisfaction. Personally, I believe that the major goal of punishment is to reduce crime rates, which is why I believe in consequentialist punishments because its primary goal is to discourage others from committing crimes. Retribution does not do this and is, therefore, in my opinion, not the most effective method of punishment.

Nonetheless, there are some advantages to retribution. For example, victims of crime may frequently feel as though they have lost control of their lives. They can reclaim their power with Retribution. Communicating with the criminal restores the victim’s sense of self-worth. Furthermore, retribution might provide an opportunity for offenders to try to right some of their wrongs. If the crime was robbery, for example, the criminal may be allowed to assist the victim in recovering their belongings.

On the other hand, there are numerous consequentialist penalties that will ensure and strive for lower crime rates. Deterrence, for example, is a repercussion of punishment that keeps others from committing crimes and criminals from reoffending. After society is cautioned about the potential consequences of committing immoral acts, crime rates drop. This theory was supported by philosopher Paul Ree, who claimed that penalties were used not to punish misbehavior, but to prevent it from happening again in the future. Without deterrence, society would descend into chaos, with ‘each person snatching out as much property of others as might be taken by force, without regard for their happiness or even life.’ As a result, deterrence permits society to preserve a sense of security, justice, and peace. Also, crime rates would not be lowered if people were unaware of the consequences of their activities after they were caught, because they would believe their actions were justified.

Incapacitation and societal protection are two further ways that consequentialism reduces crime. This type of punishment involves focusing on protecting society from a dangerous offender. Incapacitation restricts a criminal from having the freedom that they may usually have in society.

By incapacitating an offender, we are preventing the individual from committing further offenses since they are removed from society and locked or restrained somewhere (study.com). Examples of incapacitation include prison sentences, the death penalty, and house arrest. Prison sentences and house arrest divide and separate a criminal from society in order to safeguard the community ultimately removing the possibility of a criminal harming others. The death penalty does a similar thing as prison sentences, and house arrests but instead, it eliminates the possibility of the individual committing further crimes.

Stanton E., perceives prisons to be ‘schools for crime’ or ‘breeding grounds for crime.’ ‘The fundamental principle is that locking up offenders makes them worse by teaching them new ‘tricks of the trade,” he said.

This is because the criminals will be in the company of other criminals, causing them to become ‘even more unethical or dangerous.’ However, because of the present rehabilitation and restoration support systems offered in jails, I disagree.

Even though rehabilitation and restoration don`t particularly center on society, it does consider the support a criminal needs to decrease the chance of them committing a crime again. Its goal is to teach offenders how to distinguish between good and wrong. Because they have been separated from their initial goals, criminals adapt and become better individuals by adjusting their original perspective. As a result, societal protection is maintained while offenders adapt and consequently set an example for the rest of society to follow. This essentially reduces crime rates and conjointly helps people get the individual help they require to change and improve their conduct or state of mind (page 17 of the handbook).

The benefits of consequentialist punishment can be seen in its potential to improve not only society but also the offender’s morality. These punishments effectively reduce crime while

Some argue that rather than relying solely on consequentialism or retribution, we should combine the two principles to arrive at a morally acceptable punishment. Motive is an important aspect of crime, in my opinion, because it affects whether or not a person will commit an illegal act. The offender’s mental state and background, especially their current life situation, must also be taken into account because it has a substantial impact on their actions.

As a result, I believe that people should be punished based on their intentions and reasons for acting the way they did. A compromise of both theories would enable people to identify the truth and reality of crime, as well as provide a more realistic explanation of why someone would commit such acts. However, because it is based solely on judgment, it may be unbalanced to compromise both theories as there are no specific rules or guidelines in order to determine the appropriate punishment for criminals. This may be unfair to some people because the degree of sympathy they receive while determining their punishment varies depending on the judge and their personal beliefs or morals.

The benefits of consequentialist punishment can be seen in its potential to improve not only society but also the offender’s morality. These punishments effectively reduce crime while also protecting society, which justifies their moral use.

Consequentialist punishment (deterrence), unlike deontological punishment (retribution), to me, is more ethically acceptable since it allows the consequences of one’s wrongdoings to be enforced only for the benefit of the majority, not the minority. Whereas retribution provides a brief sense of satisfaction to a limited number of those desiring revenge or equality, consequentialist approaches provide greater overall benefits.

Furthermore, consequentialist penalties are delivered with good intentions and for the greater good. The idea considers the best interests of society and distributes punishment in a way that benefits the majority. One person is worth sacrificing for twenty others in the eyes of a consequentialist; I agree with this viewpoint since it is rational to value the lives of the majority because there is a higher level of overall satisfaction. Even though the punishment is not proportional, it nonetheless has moral consequences through immoral behaviors.

I believe retribution fails to meet these standards and produces ineffective or immoral outcomes. Temporary pleasure, which is a component of retribution, does not reflect moral principles and teaches the opposite of how we must act and behave toward others.

Conclusion

To summarise, I believe that consequentialist techniques of punishment have purposes that generate better results and benefit society as a whole. They assist offenders by allowing them to grow and alter their ideas in order to become better people. In essence, this reduces crime, which benefits society and protects the community from re-offending and other forms of criminal activity. Furthermore, consequentialist punishments are morally justifiable because their goals are for the greater good. This is beneficial to society because it promotes values such as forgiveness, peace, and tolerance. Retribution, on the other hand, achieves nothing other than an initial satisfaction of fairness; however, crime is not lessened. In my opinion, retribution does not promote moral principles because it prevents peace, forgiveness, or development from occurring. I also believe that compromising penalties is less effective than consequentialist penalties since it does not follow any rules, making them unfair or unjust to some people. Ultimately, I believe consequentialist punishments are the best method because of the outcomes and pure intentions behind it which are essentially carried out for the greater good.

To what extent can retributivist and consequentialist punishment philosophies, in conjunction with key sociological perspectives on the role and function of punishment be used to justify the use of the death penalty?

Capital punishment is the government-sanctioned practice whereby an offender is legally executed by the state as punishment for a crime. Its usage dates back to the beginning of human civilizations for, without developed prison systems, there has historically been no other alternative to incapacitate and punish criminals. Today, fifty-six countries retain the death penalty. There were at least 690 executions in 2018, with 19,336 people under sentence of death (Amnesty International, 2018). In the United States of America alone, an average of thirty-five people a year have been judicially executed since 1608 (Haines, 1996). Countries such as India and Japan, wholly democratic and fully industrialized, still rely on this form of punishment as a deterrent (Garland, 2005). Although antiquated methods such as burning at the stake, disembowelment or flaying are no longer practiced; seemingly barbaric methods such as beheading, stoning and gas asphyxiation are still employed today. Capital punishment is a deeply rooted form of punishment and has long-standing cultural values (Kaplan, 2012).

Despite its extensive historical use, capital punishment is, today, a highly contested issue and one on which the majority of the world stands firm on. The death penalty has been entirely abolished in 102 countries, with Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibiting its use and The United Nations General Assembly calling for a universal moratorium on all executions. Finding its roots in the writing of Montesquieu, Voltaire and Bentham, the abolitionist movement believe that capital punishment is inhumane and the worst possible violation of human rights (Malone, 1979).

To justify any form of punishment, we must demonstrate that the sanction imposed achieves its desired objectives, but also that those objectives cannot be attained in some other way. Punishment may be justified by reference to forward-looking or backward-looking theories, namely consequentialism and retribution. Where consequentialism holds that punishment is justified where it can secure some valuable end, such as the protection of the innocent or by preventing further crime; the theory of retribution holds that punishment is not justified because of some socially advantageous outcome, but simply because punishment is deserved.

This essay will endeavor to assess the extent to which capital punishment is justified under the doctrine of consequentialism or retribution. Ultimately, this essay will find that neither theory can prove justificatory enough and will instead advocate for an alternative.

Consequentialism holds that punishment may be justified where it can be shown that its infliction leads to a greater good. The use of the death penalty, they posit, not only eliminates the offender from society and prevents re-offending but may also deter others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. Jeremy Bentham (1830), regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism, believed that punishment itself is reprehensible for it inflicts further suffering and so should only be carried out so far as it promises to prevent a greater evil. Should it fail to accomplish such objectives, then according to the consequentialist view, the infliction of punishment will be unjustified. Consequentialist justifications for punishment are largely premised upon incapacitation and deterrence, this essay will evaluate each in turn to assess the extent to which they prove justification for capital punishment.

Incapacitation limits an offender’s capacity to commit a further crime by temporarily or permanently depriving them of their liberty, often by incarceration or the employment of the death penalty. Honderich (2006) refers to imprisonment’s ‘capacitating effects’ where he who is incarcerated may now be exposed to new opportunities for criminal activity such as sexual crimes against other prisoners and gang affiliations which often introduces the offender to more heinous crimes. By executing the offender, there is no opportunity for further crime. By simply eliminating an offender from society, consequentialists believe that we can maximize pleasure and minimize further pain and suffering.

Secondly, punishment is justified by its deterrent effect on criminal behavior and thus capital punishment too may be justified where it can prevent others from engaging in criminal activity. The more severer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect in intimidating potential offenders (Walker, 1993). Perhaps surprisingly, for the utmost utilitarian, such as Markman and Cassell in the Stanford Law Review (1988), it would be entirely justified to execute innocents should it have the effect of deterring others. The fear of death will factor into an individual’s calculation of the cost and rewards of their behavior (Lempert, 1981).

This theory proves redundant on both fronts. Incapacitation by way of executing an offender only furthers the critique of the consequentialist theory. By eliminating a person from society, we are not maximizing happiness. Capital punishment leaves no room for rehabilitation, is significantly more costly than life imprisonment (Gibbs, 1978), and further adds to the suffering of the defendant’s family.

It is assumed that most individuals are rational agents and will thus be able to calculate the risk of punishment against the potential pleasure gained from committing a crime. However, the very logic of such rational choice theory is questionable. Golash (2005) suggests that most people do not calculate such costs when committing an offense, but rather they do so out of passion, opportunity, and impulse; things that are not thought out in advance. With regards to capital punishment, the probability of being executed is around 1 in 1,000 (Hood, 2000) and any rational agent would view this as a very remote risk. Bentham, a strong supporter of punishment’s deterrent effect, made clear that we cannot deter by punishing an individual for an act that they did not know was wrong, such as those who are mentally ill. How then, can we reconcile with cases such as Bobby Joe Long who was executed in Florida in 2019 despite medical experts stating that his service-related injuries had damaged the areas of the brain responsible for judgment and behavior control? Or the case of Akmal Shaikh who was executed in China in 2009 despite evidence of mental illness? Even despite such flaws with the theory itself; such deterrent effect of capital punishment as espoused by consequentialists simply has no empirical data to support its utility. Deterrence theory holds that crime rates will be lowest in places where offending evokes the most pain, such as in retentionist states. Sellin (1980) found that those who commit serious offenses, such as murder, are extremely unlikely to re-offend. The New York Times (2000) discovered that it was the 10 of the 12 states without the death penalty that had lower than-average homicide rates. Radlett and Lacock (2008) reiterated an overwhelming consensus among criminologists that the death penalty provides no more deterrent effect than that already achieved by imprisonment. Any evidence of a deterrent effect is far too inconclusive to justify such an extreme punishment. Hood (2000) believes that for there to be any overall deterrent effect, there would have to be a much higher rate of executions, even on those who have committed murders not deserving of death, invariably reaping further injustice. To add insult to injury, where deterrence does work, it is usually for those who need it least (Scott, 2013). Those with economic stability, strong social ties or a career, for example, are much more likely to be deterred from crime because they have so much to lose. It is those that have nothing to lose, such as those impoverished, that are less susceptible to any deterrent effects of capital punishment. Mathiesen (2006) posits that our penal system punishes the poorest the hardest and general deterrence is a way of maintaining social order by sacrificing the poorest in society.

Beccaria, although an avid opponent of the death penalty, saw one circumstance where imprisonment does not go far enough and capital punishment should me employed; “when, though deprived of his liberty, he has such power and connection as may endanger the security of the nation” (Beccaria, 1764). This, utilitarians believe, is an example of where capital punishment is capable of fulfilling a socially advantageous purpose. Admirable in theory, utilitarianism simply cannot reconcile with real-world factors. To illustrate, Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006 in the hopes of instilling peace in Iraq. Unlike what Beccaria may have envisaged, the execution of Hussein only caused further unrest between the two Muslim groups in Iraq, Sunnis, and Shias, with 75 people being killed in the crossfire only hours after his death (Bardenwerper, 2016). Capital punishment, even in the name of humanity, does not prevent further evil, and often only furthers strife.

Bentham strongly believed that we should not punish where doing so would be inefficacious, unprofitable, or unable to prevent further crime. The death penalty achieves no greater good and only causes further needless suffering. To reiterate Beccaria, this form of punishment is both unnecessary and useless.

Where consequentialism attempts to justify punishment on the basis that it will achieve some identifiable good, retribution theory makes no such claim. Both Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel believed that a good action was one undertaken for its own sake, not because of some extrinsic reward, for ‘a man can never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another’ (Kant, 1796). Retributivists believe that we should punish an offender simply because they deserve to be punished for the crime that they have committed. Durkheim (1893) believed that a crime is an act that greatly offends society’s collective moral beliefs and attitudes, the collective conscience. The natural response is a cry for vengeance and the need to reinforce solidarity by the use of punishment. Hegel (1832) too, dismissed the idea that punishment should act as a deterrent or provide rehabilitation, but rather punishment should simply right the wrong. When someone takes the life of another, the balance of justice is disturbed, and in order to restore that balance, we must impose a counterbalancing disadvantage on the offender (von Hirsch, 1976). Advocated by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Thomas Aquinas, the doctrinal belief is that retribution is more than mere vengeance, but rather a natural urge to punish those who have forfeited their right to life. Central to the theory of retribution is the principle of proportionality; that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. He who commits murder must himself be put to death, argues Kant, for no other sentence is sufficient to restore justice, for ‘there is no similarity between life, if however wretched it may be, and death. Central to the theory of retribution is this principle of lex talionis, the law of retaliation, which follows the biblical teaching of “an eye for an eye”.

The doctrine of retribution can be seen in our current sentencing framework and was defined as a primary rationale for punishment in the Criminal Justice Act (1991). The US Supreme Court also justified the use of the death penalty in the retributivist language (Garland, 2005). What was once seen as callous and anachronistic is now a coherent objective evident in our modern penal system, but can it truly provide a justification for the retention and use of the death penalty?

If a crime must warrant death, then society must be the murderer to carry out that sentence. Cesare Beccaria, in his essay On Crimes and Punishment, denounced the use of the death penalty due to its barbaric nature and questioned whether anyone has the right to take another life. Capital punishment sets a ‘beastly’ example (Beccaria, 1764) with not only its contempt for human life, but for its effect of brutalizing society by legitimating such violence (Bowers, 1974). Highly publicized executions legitimate lethal violence and demonstrate that it is acceptable to kill another human being should they offend you, whilst punishing the very same act. Indeed, Foucault (1979) reminds us of the history of capital punishment, how it had never been concerned with fairness or justice, but rather it was a public spectacle that set apart the powerful from the powerless, but at the same time such visible brutality implicated spectators in acts as brutal as those attributed to the criminal. Its historical use was to remind people where power lay and to maintain social order. Retributivists rely on the biblical teachings of lex talionis to justify such contradictory killing. Yet lex talionis has never been concerned with the law of retaliation, but rather the law of reconciliation; “but I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

Hegel (1832) believed that injustice arises where ‘there is one lash too many, or one dollar or one cent, one week in prison or one day, too many or too few’. Although admirable in theory, the discrepancies evident in the practice of capital punishment go directly against what retributivist theory purports: that justice is satisfied only where the guilty are punished and in proportion to the gravity of their offense. Kramer (2011) put forward the idea of a purgative rationale, where members of society have a duty to purge those who are defiling evil. However, for Kramer, ‘defiling evil’ was a description reserved for the worst, more grievous offenders. Yet it is clear that the death penalty is not reserved for the worst offenders, but often the most marginalized and those lacking sufficient resources.

Concerns are often raised regarding the ‘disturbing correlation between race, both of the victim and the defendant, and the imposition of the death penalty (United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 2001). Despite capital punishment being reserved for the worst possible crimes, ethnic minorities are time and time again, being sentenced to death for a crime that merely deserves imprisonment. An illustrative case is that of Johnny Martinez, a Hispanic man who was convicted for the murder of a white man. Despite an array of mitigating factors such as genuine remorse, full cooperation with the police, no previous criminal record, and pleas from the victim’s mother for clemency; Martinez was executed in 2002. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 7 states that ‘all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law’. This is clearly not the case when, in the US for example, African Americans are disproportionately represented amongst those on death row, and account for one in three of those executed since 1977, despite only making up 12 percent of the US population (Amnesty International, 2003). In addition to being sentenced to death for crimes not necessarily deserving of the death penalty, African Americans are also being sentenced to death for crimes that there white counterparts would not be similarly sentenced for. There are six times as many black men as white men in custody and, as Carson (2014) found, 3 percent of all African American men were incarcerated, compared to the 0.5 percent of white males. Gross and Mauro (1989) also found that 28.8% of black defendants whose victims have whitely received the death penalty, compared to the 6% of black defendants whose victims were black under near identical circumstances. Around 28 percent of African American men will be incarcerated in their lifetime (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). In McCleskey v Kemp (1987), it was held that “disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system”, but how can retributivists reconcile their support for the death penalty with such obvious racial disparities that are apparent in the American criminal justice system? South Africa, for example, could not reconcile such discrepancies and in 1995 (State v Makwanyane) ruled death penalty unconstitutional due to deeply rooted racism which often played a role in the ultimate decision of who should live and who should die.

In addition to race, social class is a significant contributor to whether an offender will be sentenced to death. An alarming proportion of those on death row come from a low social class. In Furman v Georgia (1972), Thurgood Marshall admitted that “it is evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society” for they cannot afford to maneuver throughout the legal system to circumvent the death penalty in a way that their wealthier counterparts able to. Research has shown that ineffective legal counsel is one of the most significant, yet preventable, reasons for offenders receiving the death penalty (Cole, 1999). The poor are disadvantaged at every phase in the legal process. Street crime, for example, is targeted at a much higher rate and subject to prosecution disproportionately compared to white-collar or corporate crime (Reiman & Leighton, 2013). Marxist theory depicts law as a tool used by the ruling class to control the working class and punishment as a state apparatus of economical conditioning and a way of maintaining rigid class divisions. Karl Marx believed that the way in which we punish criminals has the effect of securing a ruling class dominance. Neo-Marxists suggest that punishment will be harshest when labor is plentiful and human life cheap and that it is a means in which to control the poorest in society (Rusche, 1980). Crime is not a willful attack of the collective conscience, as Durkheim would suggest, but rather a form of rebellion by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Retribution can provide no justification for capital punishment when it is clearly not simply about guilt, but rather an array of arbitrary and capricious factors such as a person’s socioeconomic position.

With such severe punishment comes insurmountable risks. How can we justify such a final form of punishment where there exists any possibility for error? Since the introduction of DNA testing in the 1980s, the number of innocent people being sentenced to death has largely diminished, but we cannot say with absolute certainty that even today, innocent lives are not taken for a crime that they did not commit. To illustrate, Clifford Williams and Charles Ray Finch were both wrongly convicted of murder in 1976 and sentenced to death. 42 years later, in 2019, both were exonerated after being found innocent. It is impossible to know how many cases there have been where an innocent life has been taken before they could be exonerated. The use of such irreversible methods should be avoided when, as Naughton (2005) suggests, there are likely many more miscarriages of justice than is thought to be the case.

Central to retributivists’ justification of punishment is that there must be a lack of arbitrariness or bias, both of which are clearly inconsistent with the application of the death penalty. The principle of proportionality is compromised by real-world factors such as race and judicial errors. Braithwaite and Pettit (1990) point to the criminal justice system’s bias towards the most powerful in society at the cost of the most marginalized, stating that ‘where the desert is greatest, the punishment will be the least. As suggested by Hood (2000), capital punishment simply cannot be applied without an unacceptable degree of arbitrariness, bias, errors, and undue cruelty. For Kant (1796), the autonomy of individuals requires that everyone is treated with dignity, yet those on death row are treated ‘as bodies kept alive to be killed’ (Johnson & Carroll, 1985). In addition, the killing of innocent people goes directly against the concept of just deserts. The retributive doctrine does not leave itself open for many critiques; for it makes no instrumental claims, only that punishment is simply deserved. However, this is precisely the reason why it cannot serve as a basis for capital punishment. The retributive theory provides no solutions to specific problems and errors that occur frequently under the current system of capital punishment.

Consequentialist justifications of punishment are also largely based on rehabilitation; the process of re-educating those who commit crimes with the ultimate goal of allowing them to reintegrate into society and once more become a member of the conscience collective. Durkheim stresses the importance of social integration and, as many of those who turn to crime are often those already cast out from society, rehabilitation provides a way for them to strengthen ties with their social group. In using Durkheim’s analogy of society is a living organism, in which each organ plays a vital role in keeping the being alive, crime is an illness and society should respond not by amputating a limb, but by treating that illness. Forward-looking theories idealize punishment as preventing some further evil, yet capital punishment clearly does not achieve such a goal and only furthers the vicious cycle of crime, whilst executing individuals who could have been helped and reintegrated into society. Utilitarians believe that if an alternative option could produce greater happiness, then that method should be invoked. Methods of rehabilitation and restorative justice clearly strive to do this, allowing the offender to reintegrate into society, limiting the suffering of the offender’s family, and oftentimes, allowing the victim’s family to move on from their grief by meeting with the offender. From a utilitarian perspective, the significant cost of capital punishment is a negative side effect. A better use of such money, and one that would indeed be socially advantageous, would be to spend it on rehabilitation programs, or perhaps increase police forces in order to deter crime without killing of a human being to do so.

Similarly, the theory of retribution is fundamental to our current penal system and is hugely popular amongst the public, yet it simply cannot provide a justification for capital punishment and the many problems associated with it, those of which go directly against the doctrine’s fundamental teachings.

Neither of these doctrines can provide adequate justification for the practice of capital punishment. It is an outdated, barbaric form of punishment that brings with it an array of specific problems that neither of these theories can provide answers for. We can, however, always be committed to punishing a criminal for his actions, without being committed to the infliction of punishment through the use of capital punishment. Von Hirsch acknowledged a moral obligation to punish but also recognized a moral objection against the infliction of pain or suffering. There are many forms of effective punishment that do not involve further pain or suffering. By incapacitating an offender by imprisoning them, whilst also striving to rehabilitate them into society, we satisfy the retributivist’s need for punishment, whilst insisting that the way we punish be justified on utilitarian grounds. The balance of justice may be restored by having an offender give back to society, such as through community service, which arguably maximizes happiness for both the individual and society. There are simply too many factors at play from arbitrariness and bias, to judicial errors and botched executions, to justify the use of the death penalty.

In conclusion, there is no theoretical or empirical justification for the use of capital punishment. It achieves no greater good, prevents no further evil, and is plagued with an array of issues that utilitarians and retributivists have yet to sufficiently address and provide solutions for. Capital punishment is not merely theoretical, for it has real-life consequences that must be addressed. Complete abolition of the death penalty is the only humane option. Instead, we should provide alternative forms of punishment such as imprisonment and rehabilitative programs.

Analytic Essay

In this paper, the following will focus on the topic of punishment and social production with a specific focus on management, control, and place. The first section of this essay will address ways in which punishment creates social order not only for those labeled as offenders, but society as a whole. The second section of this paper will address the social mechanisms, policies, and actors involved in punishment, in which the third section of this paper will focus on how such factors work toward creating social order. Finally, the fourth section of this paper will address how different communities within society are affected by punishment.

This first section of the paper will address how punishment creates social order for both offenders and society as a whole. As outlined in Hall et al.’s reading on the management of punishment and social production, punishment is used in society as a compliance tactic, such that the provocation or mere existence of punishment enacted on offenders within society allows for the public to simply comply and readily accept the need for efficient means to harm reduction methods (Hall et al. 9). Punishment of offenses such as mugging as outlined by Hall et al., creates moral panic, such that when a crime is deemed as a threat to social norms and values, in which society is at risk of harm, society as a whole then follows a consensus that punishment is needed to maintain social order (Hall et al. 23). Through the use of mugging and its promotion for the use of punishment, one can see why this form of crime and criminality justifies as to why punishment is not only needed for social order, but is needed to create balance in society, and dismantle existing social tensions or problems. Given this example of mugging outlined by Hall et al., one can see that punishment of such offenses not only creates social order, but reduces the rates of moral panic, and creates social cohesion by restoring justice back into society. Given this, it is prevalent that punishment is used as a means to not only control society and offenders, but to produce society as well, such that acts of punishment are a way of deterring and controlling society through the use of prisons, asylums, or rehabilitation institutes for instance. Likewise, punishment produces society, by creating social worry through moral panic, in which this may promote positively produced acts in society, social stability based on consensus, or the very act of trusting politicians in hopes that they have the best interests of society and can create social control, in which punishment is a part of society’s production.

As for Rios’ reading on the control mechanisms behind social production and punishment, he draws on the work of Foucault and the idea of constant surveillance through the panopticon. The panopticon stood as a use for constant surveillance, in which offenders were taught to self-discipline and it created obedient subjects of the prison (Rios 88). Quite similarly, the use for the panopticon has evolved into systems of constant surveillance amongst young boys as outlined by Rios, seeing as young offenders in certain communities have been the center of punitive measures of punishment and the center of this ‘panopticon’. Given the oversight amongst young boys, this form of punishment has evolved into a modern-day panopticon and has labeled such bodies as risks or threats from society, by which constant surveillance and oversight on young boys controls and contains their actions, all while generating social order to society as a whole. As a result, this systems approach to punishment has somewhat positive outcomes, seeing as young boys have developed coping skills, such that the fear of being further punished or pushed further down into the criminal justice system is enough to comply in such a way that generates social order to both offenders and society as a whole.

In this second section of the paper, the social mechanisms, policies, and actors involved in punishment are addressed. The social mechanisms involved in punishment could either be through the carceral state, in which may include formal punishments or state surveillance. Through the administrative state, punishment may be enforced through social programs, and through the legal state, punishment can be justified through legal rights, constitutions, or state sanctions. Social mechanisms are moving parts in society, such that punishment amongst society is a form of social order that is generated from shared beliefs, norms and consensus. Through the civil society, punishment doesn’t have to be a formal body implementing state policies or sanctions, but could simply be generated through culture, media, family or religious beliefs (lecture; Richer Mar. 4, 2020). As an example, a culture is a form of social control mechanism seeing as culture has specific connections to the state, social institutions, and the social structure of such institutions, in which laws, legislation, or prisons all work together with culture to promote a social state of affair that give rise to cultural means. Further, punishment has changed through history, and therefore changes or depends on time and place, such that culture heavily influences how punishment is enacted. As outlined by Beckett and Herbert’s reading on penal boundaries, social control mechanisms, such as spatial exclusion tactics are a way of punishing certain bodies in society or creating an outward movement of undesirable populations. This form of social control mechanism overlaps with policies involved in punishment and may include vagrancy or loitering laws, civil commitments or gang injunctions, in which these forms of spatial exclusion are all ways in which certain individuals may experience punishment (Beckett & Herbert 3).

As opposed to social mechanisms of punishment, policies generate a more formal implementation and approach toward punishment. With the existence of a mugging crisis, a push for punishment policies surrounding more tough-on-crime rhetoric originates, such that soft sentences or soft-on-the-criminal policies eventually lead to more permissive attitudes (Hall et al. 13). As a result, tough-on-crime rhetoric led to a transition period of soft to tougher outcomes in the courtroom, such that created policies helped determine sentencing outcomes, in which factors considered include deterrence, retribution, public safety, and rehabilitation methods (Hall et al. 11). Tough on crime policies also targets minority groups in high crime situations and promotes harsher police practices, such as stop and frisk, or carding as a result.

Punishment can also be enforced through criminal justice or state actors, in which may include judges, police officers, policymakers, or politicians. Given these examples, criminal justice or state actors represent the state and their ideals on what punishment should entail, such that these actors represent a formal body and enforce formal acts of punishment. As outlined in Hausmann’s reading on misdemeanor justice, formal body representatives of the state enforce punishment through methods that guarantee social control, and approach methods of punishment that not only betters the criminal justice system, but trace, engages, and disciplines subjects in such a manner that works in the favor of both the offender and society as a whole (Hausmann 353). Hausmann also argues that the level of misdemeanor offenses is increasing, and criminal justice actors must prioritize punishment tactics that are less inclined to convict or lock up every offender they come into contact with (Hausmann 356). By using this approach, criminal justice actors associate select offenses with low-level policing, in order to reduce the level of constraints imposed on the criminal justice system and criminal courts, and use penal techniques that are more effective in promoting social control.

In this third section of the paper, the social mechanisms, policies, and actors that create social order is addressed. For the social mechanisms involved in creating social order, Hausmann suggests that the criminal justice system itself stands as a body that uses social control mechanisms to generate social order, in which the practices of such control mechanisms impose punishment as a means to regulate deviance. In terms of the carceral state, punishment can be generated through the use of prisons, such that this form of social control mechanism removes and physically segregates offenders from the rest of society (Hausmann 355). Hausmann’s position on the use for prisons in society is quite similar to the eugenics movement. More specifically, the eugenics movement removed those deemed as unfit in society or tried to cure individuals who did not reflect the norm within society. By physically removing individuals from society and isolating them in prisons, all while labeling them as offenders and inheritable, this is not only a social control mechanism for social order, but it is a mere reflection of a modern-day eugenic movement. Despite the use of prisons, Hausmann also argues that the mere existence or threat of prisons is enough for society as a whole to comply with legislation and enough for the state to create social order. This is especially present amongst probation or parole populations, such that the fear of re-entering the prison is enough for formally incarcerated individuals to comply, and not re-offend or pose a threat to the rest of society (Hausmann 355). Another way in which social control mechanisms can create social order is through the use of culture, in which media coverages or political-driven movements use culture to promote the structural needs of society, and it is through a culture that one is able to make arguments, create protests, or take political action in order to generate social order. As example, the #MeToo Movement or the Black Lives Matter Movement, are prime examples of cultural movements that fight for the rights of a society’s cultural meanings, and a demand for social order. Likewise, by using media to create moral panic and create social awareness, people are forced into thinking that they need a fast solution, in which this punitive attitude forces society to demand stability, social justice, and social order.

As for the actors involved in creating social order, Hausmann argues that criminal justice actors approach punishment tactics at a low level of policing when dealing with misdemeanors. Given this, criminal justice actors can also extend this use for low-level policing across all other domains of enforcing punishment, such that the use of discretion not only shows leniency when enforcing social order and social control, but it shows how the state can also protect the rights of both offenders and society as a whole by giving attention to more severe and threatening crimes or offenses (Hausmann 358). Criminal justice actors also use their discretion when considering misdemeanor punishments, such that they use degradation ceremonies such as marking techniques to identify or label offenders, procedural hassle techniques to engage one with formal state procedures, or performance tactics to address unaccomplished assigned tasks (Hausmann 365). Having said this, it is through the use of discretion by criminal justice actors that creates social order amongst offenders and society as a whole.

Finally, the fourth section of this paper discusses how different communities within society are affected by punishment. Communities heavily marked or over-policed experience overt punishment, in which Hausmann argues that a felony conviction or criminal record is especially harsh on marginal communities or amongst the formerly incarcerated, such that this tactic to mark individuals as offenders bleeds into the social opportunities one can attain, job opportunities, educational opportunities, housing commitments, or familial relations. Moreover, those in marginal communities with a record or marked as formerly incarcerated, experience a sense of isolation, and are faced with punishment outside of the prison and into their everyday personal life. Punishment is also experienced differently within society amongst various communities, such that ghetto areas, areas concentrated with young men/offenders, areas with visible minorities, or individuals with low socio-economic statuses experience mass surveillance, oversight, and differential treatment of punishment tactics by criminal justice actors. Given this, marking techniques used amongst visible minorities, are proxies given to police actors to use discretion when enforcing the law, such that spatial fixes such as park exclusions, trespassing admonishment, or off-limit orders are all ways in which punishment is enacted on marked bodies.

Communities concentrated with various social identities also experience punishment, in which Rios argues that young Latino and Black boys use ‘play’ as a form of personal enjoyment activities that are often times confused as a social disorder, such that young brown bodies or those with marginalized backgrounds are faced with social isolation, and restrained as to what space they can use for recreation (Rios 76). As a result, marginalized bodies, especially youth, are criminalized for their ‘play’ time and are overly exposed to park time cutoffs, or camera surveillance in their neighborhoods, such that this use of state surveillance and oversight criminalizes the victim, and overly exposes particular communities to unequal punishment and legal cynicism. Given this, young Black and Latino boys are always under constant scrutiny, surveillance, and policing, such that they rebel and turn to crime. Rios also argues that probation officers mark marginalized young boys by branding them as criminals in front of their community peers, such that this is a form of punishment that is supposed to scare young boys into thinking that they are constantly being watched, if not by probation officers, then by the rest of their community (Rios 84). This then creates unrealistic or high expectations of young boys, such that the actions of probation officers promote an environment that either under-polices or over-polices, and uses police practices not in the best interests of the young boys, but rather promotes further punishment for social control. As a result, the treatment of young boys by their probation officers has led individuals to distrust criminal justice actors, and has promoted the use of non-compliance tactics, or developing a code of the street mentality.

Communities concentrated by different social statuses’ also experience punishment, such that homeless populations are oftentimes faced with social isolation, and in more extreme cases banishment. As explained by Beckett and Herbert, banishment is used to restore order and civility to communities, in which high levels of criminality and disorder is oftentimes tied to homelessness (Beckett and Herbert 5). In such communities with high prevalence of homelessness or low socio-economic statuses, these groups of individuals experience social exclusion and spatial segregation from the rest of society, spatial ostracism, and zoning out in which middle-class or higher-class individuals move into the inner cities, all while lower-class individuals are further pushed on the outskirts of the city. A prime example of banishment we see today is through the use of revitalization, such as the Regent Park revitalization project, or gentrification, in which individuals are forced out of their communities. Quite similarly, this use of banishment on the social movement and fluidity of society is also quite similar to the treatment of Indigenous individuals, such as through the use of the starlight tours where Indigenous people are driven by police to the outskirts of the city and left in the cold to find their way back to town. This is not only a form of zoning out imposed on Indigenous bodies, but it is a form of punishment seeing as criminal justice actors are directly involved in banishing and excluding a specific group of individuals.

In conclusion, as outlined in this paper, punishment and social production is expressed through the use of management, control, and place. Furthermore, punishment not only controls offenders and society as a whole, but produces it, in which social mechanisms, policies, and actors are actively involved in punishment, and contributes to creating social order through differential treatment of punishment experienced amongst different communities.

Utopianism is the conventional label for a variety of different approaches to dreaming or thinking about, describing, or trying to create a greater society. Utopianism is derived from the phrase utopia, coined by the usage of Thomas More. In his e ebook Utopia (1516) More described a society significantly higher than England as it existed at the time, and the word utopia (good place) has come to imply a description of a fictional place, commonly a society, that is greater than the society in which the creator lives and which aspects as a criticism of the author’s society. In some instances, it is supposed as a path to be discovered in social reform, or even, in a few instances, as a possible intention to be achieved.

The thinking of utopianism has its origins. In Utopia More of a national debate over the nature of his creation. Was it fictional or real? Was the apparent satire aimed especially at current England or used to be it additionally aimed at the society described in the book? More essential for later developments, used to be it naively unrealistic or did it present a social ingenious and prescient that, whether or not or not potential or not, ought to serve as a cause to be aimed at? Most of what we now identify as utopianism derives from the final question. In the nineteenth century Robert Owen in England and Charles Fourier, Henri Saint-Simon, and Tienne Cabet in France, collectively recognized as utopian socialists, popularized the chance of creating a higher future through the organization of small, experimental communities. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and others argued that such an approach was once incapable of solving the troubles of industrial society, and the label utopian’ here suggests unrealistic and naive. Later theorists, each opposed to and supportive of utopianism, debated the desirability of depicting a higher society as a way of achieving significant social change. In particular, Christian religious thinkers have been deeply divided over utopianism. Is the act of envisaging a higher life on earth heretical, or is it an everyday section of Christian thinking? Since the crumple of communism in jap Europe and the former Soviet Union, several theorists have argued that utopianism has come to an end. It has not; utopias are nonetheless being written and intentional communities founded, hoping that a greater existence is possible.

The realized guys of Utopia are given to disputing over pretty a range of questions of ethical philosophy, alternatively, their chief trouble is in attempting to determine the provide and nature of happiness. The prevailing opinion amongst them is that pleasure is the groundwork of that happiness.

They seldom interact in philosophical discussions except by introducing nonsecular worries into their speculations. One of the beliefs at the coronary heart of their religion is that man’s soul is immortal and that it is mission to the punishments of hell for vicious acts and to the rewards of heaven for a life of virtue. A definition of advantage that is frequently traditional amongst their philosophers is dwelling according to the prison recommendations of nature. Reason serves as information toward the aim of conformity to nature’s rule. It is reason, they say, that counsels first of all a reverence for Divine Majesty, and subsequent that we maintain our minds free from passion. Finally, cause directs that we try to promote the happiness of all persons. Though nature prompts human beings to look for pleasure as an aim of life, it also units limits to that purpose, specifically in the avoidance of acts depriving others of their pleasures. Furthermore, they consider that to deprive oneself of pleasure for the achievement of others’ pleasure produces satisfaction constituting a new shape of pleasure, a pleasure of the mind.

Every motion or condition, whether or now not of body or of mind, which nature affords for our pleasure is described as pleasure, but to distinguish between true and false pleasures, we name upon reason. Among false pleasures, in their opinion, are delight in outstanding clothes, delight in ‘nobility’ of lineage, and pleasure in property and jewels. They moreover regard looking out as a false pleasure and, likewise, video games of chance.

Among the appropriate pleasures, they apprehend first handy sensory or bodily pleasures eating, drinking, and performing the act of love as being sanctioned via way of nature. These actions, fundamental for the preservation or propagation of life, are ordained by using windfall to be pleasurable. To these sensory pleasures may additionally also be introduced music, which makes its attraction to each physique and mind. They additionally add to the checklist of perfect pleasures the ride of well-being and these excessive spirits that derive from appropriate health.

Bodily pleasures are valued only to the extent to which they fulfill necessities; ‘. . . yet they have enjoyable in them, and with due gratitude renowned the tenderness of the exquisite Author of Nature, who has planted in our appetites, by using which these matters that are fundamental for our protection are likewise made nice to us.’

The pleasures of the idea are held in higher esteem than those of the body. They show themselves keen in their pursuit of statistics in nearly every field. Hythloday and his companions taught some of their wonderful college students to study Greek, in which examine they proved very apt; when Hythloday’s birthday occasion left the country, he gave the Utopians the books he had with him, an amazing deal to their delight. These were been works of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Plutarch, Herodotus, Thucydides, Hippocrates, and Galen.

The Utopians are specifically studious in matters of health and medicine, even though as a race they are highly healthy. They believe that God approves of those who inquire into and admire the complexities of His creation.

Hythloday and his pals taught the Utopians to make paper and added them to the strategies of printing, which they soon mastered so that they commenced producing copies of the books they had on a very sizeable scale.

The ideas in this philosophical communication raise a charming question. Do they have specific opinions held via More? Critics vary in their responses to the problem. Hythloday shows at the opening of the passage that these are views supported with the aid of the usage of some of their philosophers; however as the discussion progresses, he no longer refers to some thinkers and hence presents the impact that they are beliefs in many instances held with the aid of skill of Utopians. Hythloday himself is in sympathy with these doctrines.

If we are to ascribe this philosophy to More, we ought to well know that it is more the humanist, not

More the strict Christian, who is speaking. The heart of this philosophy, although no longer necessarily antiChristian, is predominantly Greek and, therefore pagan. ‘The chief intention of life is pleasure,’ they say. That naked statement, taken alone, sounds like pure hedonism or epicureanism. Further studying in the textual content material shows qualifications of that blunt assertion, making the doctrine extra decent that is, warding off depriving others of their pleasure in trying to gratify your own, and prizing the pleasures of the thinking above those of the body. An increased satisfactory label for this philosophy would perchance be ‘naturalism.’ Tune your existence to conform to the dictates of nature, which manifests God’s plan. The corollary to that injunction is to obtain joyously those experiences that nature has determined to be crucial and pleasurable, whether at a desk or in bed, at a concert, or reading Greek.

It is captivating to look at that Montaigne, who espoused the naturalistic function almost a century later, expressed these same sentiments in almost equal phrasing in his essay ‘Of Experience.’ The views introduced here have been broadly circulated among intellectuals in the course of the Renaissance, whether or not or now not they have been More’s. Another Renaissance mindset attributed to the Utopians by way of Hythloday was that inquiries into the secrets and techniques of nature, in matters of anatomy and medicine, for example, had been permissible for the reason that they ought to be recommended to mankind and should lead to a large grasp of the complexities of God’s creation.