Discuss the issue between Morriss and Menningers respective theories of punishment
While Herbert Morris proposes a retributive approach to punishment, Karl Menninger argues for its diametric opposite, the Utilitarian – or, more specifically, the therapeutic aspect thereof – approach to punishment. Ultimately, both views assume rather extreme stances on their respective ideas of human nature, the result of which renders both arguments as questionable. In this essay, I will discuss both Morris’s and Menninger’s arguments, their corresponding shortcomings and, using the case of Robert Alton Harris, explore a “middle way” between the two conflicting theories. Herbert Morris maintains that by virtue of the right of all humans to be treated as such, so logically follows the idea that all people have the right to punishment. ... The system of punishment adopted by any society should be founded upon a set of preliminary rules that stipulate the boundaries of freedom allowed to all people in the society. ... It thus follows, according to Morris that since all behaviour is governed by this rational autonomy, insofar as one freely chooses one’s actions one also, by extension, freely chooses the corresponding punishment or reward thereof. Thus, by freely undertaking benefits that others do not have, or shirking burdens that others bear, one freely invites the enactment of the according punishment upon oneself. ... Thus, punishment is the correct reaction to misbehaviour since it is done so in respect to the deviant’s maxim, and in effect, in respect to his/her human dignity. ... Thus, people are held accountable for their actions and punishment is the respectful and just expression of the consequences of misbehaviour.