In this essay, I will briefly describe three distinctive views about punishment: the retributivist view, the utilitarian view, and the rehabilitative view. In addition, I will defend the utilitarian view against the others.
             In the retributivist view, any person who is responsible for a crime will be justified by punishment (i.e. anyone who causes injury to another should suffer exactly the same injury in return). A wrongful action deserves punishment that is both sufficient and necessary for justice. Although it is often associated with revenge, retributivism should not be misunderstood as satisfying vengeful feelings of citizens.
             Most utilitarians believe that a person's wellbeing is determined by how happy he/she is, over the course of his/her whole life. According to the utilitarian thought, when considering the right thing to do, one must consider the consequences of all the possible choices involved, and then pick the choice that gives the greatest balance of good over bad for the greatest amount of people, including oneself. From a utilitarian's view, it is pointless to punish if there are no benefits whatsoever to the public in terms of utility.
             Rehabilitation is the restoration of a person to a useful place in society. The idea of rehabilitation comes after the crime has been committed. While rehabilitation may actually seem to be focused on the offender, it is more what this rehabilitation can mean to society-social order. In the rehabilitative view, it seeks for the offender to achieve regret or remorse. The whole idea of rehabilitation is to repair the breach in moral trust and create peace instead of hurt or conflict.
             In my opinion, the utilitarian view is the strongest view against punishment. Utilitarianism merely means making a decision based on what is best for everyone, which includes both the person taking the action and everyone else. Since this sometimes causes a conflict, it's up ...