• Two standard lines of justifying punishment that are separated by the time span that they look to• Leads to a better life among people (consequentialist argument)• Long-term justification assuming benefits will accrue in the future• Criminals deserve to be justified (Retributivist argument)• Short-term justification• Consequentialist• Leads to deterrence• The criminal and those looking at the criminal both look at the punishment as unpleasant• Incapacitation• "Take these people off the streets"• Rehabilitation• Change mode of thinking of person, looks to the crime as a part of the past as opposed to fear of punishment in the future (deterrence).• Don't just change the criminals incentive, but change the criminal himself• If the goal is to deter other people then does it really matter whether a person is guilty or innocent• Retributivist• Desert• If you commit a crime you deserve to be punished• charged with advocating useless suffering• What if the way to deter people the best is far worse than the crime warrants?• People should be deterred up to the point where it is actually effective in making a change• The hard part of assessing punishment is that it may often not think about a person's reasons for doing things or excuses• Bentham is a hedonistic utilitarian, pushes for pleasure and the absence of pain• Bentham argues there are four circumstances that warrant no punishment• Groundless• In the case that no harm is done or that someone has chosen to accept the consequences.• In the case that harm is done, if the good outweighs the harm then punishment is not warranted. For example if a doctor were break a person's ribsgiving CPR to save their life.• Unprofitable• When punishment commits more harm than it prevents or has a cost that is too high for what good is done• Inefficacious• If a person is insane, intoxicated or lack maturity and cannot grasp the reason for punishment.• Crime committed under circumstances under which the threat of punishment would not be enough. Such as if a person is threatened with their life tocommit a crime or the well-being of their life and those around them.• Needless• Punishing people for things that need not necessarily harm others. For example marijuana laws, who is harming others when they smoke?• Bentham of how much punishment is warranted• You should punish enough so that the expected benefit of committing the crime is less than the expected cost of committing the crime.• Penalties that are not severe enough are worse than no penalties• The penalties should not be more severe than is necessary because those that are not deterred will suffer more than they have to• The magnitude of the required penalty will have to vary with the attractiveness of the crime and the certainty of detection ( the harder it is to apprehend andconvict criminals the higher the penalty of the crime needed to deter it)• In order for a punishment to be justified the person must know that punishment is a threat.• Punishment for Bentham has to work by deterring other people from committing the same crime• Some charges that may arise form Bentham are thus:• Why we shouldn't punish people who have an excuse?• Bentham would put cases like this under the realm where punishment would be inefficacious, cause if a person has an excuse then the threat ofpunishment would not deter people• Why shouldn't we punish the innocent since the point of punishment under Bentham is to set an example for others not to follow?• Utilitarianism is not just an ideology for the actions of individuals, but for the ideal system as well.• Bentham calls us to punish those who are guilty and only those who are guilty in order to follow the rules of the system• Punishment is not just a factor of the criminal's state, but also of the crime itself.• Morris is a retributivist in that he does believe that punishment is something that a criminal has coming• Bentham does assert that people are responsible moral