Utilitarian Vs Retributive

There are two general theories of punishment: utilitarian and retributive. In the utilitarian theory of punishment, punishment is sought to discourage future occurrences of crime, while in the retributive theory, punishment is handed out because the offender deserves to be punished. Laws are used under the utilitarian philosophy specifically to maximize the overall peace of society. Because crimes and the punishment that follows are both adversaries to that peace, they should be kept to a minimum. It is understood that no truly crime-free environment exists, however, utilitarian thinkers strive to inflict only as much punishment necessary for the overall prevention of future disturbances in the society’s peace. This thinking is consequentialist in nature. The amount of good that comes from a punishment should wholly exceed the evil done by the crime, however, it is also recognized that punishment brings consequences to both the punisher and the receiver. An interesting example of this is the release of a prison inmate who is suffering from a deathly illness. The prisoner is imminently going to die, so society is not going to be benefited from his continued imprisonment, nor is society going to be harmed from any more crimes committed- as he
Deterrence operates on both a specific and large scale level. Large scale deterrence, also known as general deterrence, means that specific punishment prevents other criminals from committing those criminal acts- the punishment serves as an example. Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is when the punishment stops that single criminal from committing that crime again. The criminal may be locked in a cell in an attempt to physically confine them from the possibility of the crimes, or the punishment acted upon them is so displeasing that it literally forces the criminal to discourage his criminal