Mercy
Comparative Insight
Two main approaches to punishment are rooted in utilitarian and retributivist theory. Utilitarian theory focuses on alternatives for punishment if possible, such as rehabilitation, decriminalization of minor drug offenses, or mental health counseling. Retributivists are firm in their belief that the guilty deserve to be punished and that the severity of a punishment matches the crime. However, in “Mercy,” Alwynne Smart addresses the typical use of mercy within our nation’s criminal justice system and how it relates to the different approaches to punishment.
Mercy is the concept of imposing a less severe punishment once an individual is convicted. In theory, mercy is much more compatible with utilitarianism at the onset, as one can conclude both seek to avoid imposing cruel punishments. There are important distinctions between when mercy is acceptable and when implementing mercy would be unjust to those involved. According to Smart, mercy is generally unacceptable if “it causes the suffering of an innocent party, is detrimental to offenders welfare, harms the authority of the law” (Smart, 350). Additionally, the author suggests mercy is unjustified when it is clear that the offender will not likely reform and pursue a life of good. These situations all hold the assumption that mercy is unjustifiable if it does more harm than good.
In contrast of this view, there are several times in which mercy is just. Smart’s main argument in favor of mercy revolves around the law. In order to maintain an effective criminal justice system, the word of the law needs to be strict and consistent for all, requiring a very inflexible legal system. Therefore, using mercy can ensure the stability of our legal system, while simultaneously “fitting the punishment to the crime where the law is too inflexible” (Smart, 349). Another argument in favor of mercy is the passage of time. For example, if an individual committed a crime of petty theft over twenty years ago, and since then has lived a good and moral life, imposing punishment on this crime would do more harm to the offender than good for society. Additionally, mercy can be seen as appropriate in situations in which the offender is already morally suffering or the suffering on the offender’s family, such as an excessively high bail and financial burden, would be too great.
Mercy is mainly used to avoid injustice within a rigid legal system. In a basic view, mercy seems to align more with utilitarian theories of punishment, however, Smart argues that mercy “is a concept which only makes strict logical sense in a retributivist view of punishment” (Smart, 359). Retributivists believe in deserved punishment of the criminally offended. However, the author suggests that to a retributivist, pointless suffering can never be a deserved punishment since it does not fit the crime. This perfectly coincides with Michael Lessnoff’s view of retributivism. Lessnoff gives an entitling explanation of retributivism, or the reason why individuals feel the need to inflict punishment on others. He argues that this approach to punishment is based in emotion and principles of distribution to fit the crime. This is similar to Smart’s take on mercy; there are no legal rules regarding the concept, and if a judge were to implement mercy, it would be out of emotion and feelings over the situation. Therefore, although utilitarian alternatives to punishment are already rooted in the benevolence of society, it makes more sense to apply mercy within retributivism.
Alwynne, Smart. “Mercy” Philosophy, Vol. 43 (1968).
Lessnoff, Michael “Two Justifications of Punishment.” The Philosophical Quarterly(1950-), vol. 21, no. 83, 1971, pp. 141–148.
