Preemptive Imprisonment

Introduction

Whether or not preemptive imprisonment is justified ethically and morally remains a very contentious issue. On this issue, the public is sharply divided into two groups - those who support preemptive imprisonment and those who oppose it. This paper aims to determine whether preemptive imprisonment is morally and ethically justified.

Discussion

Utilitarian and Kantian schools of thought have different points of view on the subject of preemptive imprisonment. For instance, the concepts of utilitarianism would deem preemptive imprisonment justified. This is because utilitarianism means a conception of morality according to which the good is only what is useful, becoming therefore the principle of utility on the fundamental principle according to which one judges the morality of actions (Rocker, 2004). Utilitarian thinkers like Bentham, Stoicism and Espinosa, believe that the two basic motivations that direct or determine human behavior are pleasure and pain. They explain that human beings, like any living organism, tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Only these trends are real and, therefore, can become an unshakable principle of morality: the good and moral duty is to be defined in relation to whether he produces greater pleasure for an individual or for more people (Rocker, 2004).

This essentially means that according to Utilitarianism, to say that something is right means more pleasure than pain. Therefore, utilitarianism justifies the action since the decision of preemptive imprisonment is taken mainly to ensure that one man's imprisonment will lead to the benefit of the greater society (Floyd, 2010). Although this may seem a little harsh when looked upon from a humanist point of view, taking a look at the types of brutal crimes that could be directly and effectively avoided by this decision will certainly yield a different reaction (Dick, 2010). For example, let us consider the case of a man who has been charged with several counts of pedophilia, child molestation, and homicide. If the court decides to let such a man free simply because of lack of substantial incriminating evidence, there is a very strong likelihood that the criminal will commit even more heinous crimes once he is set free (Floyd, 2010). Hence, according to the utilitarian perspective, it can be said that a majority of moral issues could be settled easily using a simple utilitarian calculation or alternative options.

In stark contrast to the utilitarian perspective, the Kantian school of thought focuses on the ability of reason to guide humanity and discover ...