• Online Journals
  • 21
specialty journal of politics and law
Volume 3, 2018, Issue 1
An Article On the Conflict Between Utilitarianism and Duty-Sharing in Justifying the Foundations of Punishment
Seyed Sajad Kazemi, Nasrin Taheri Aram, Bahareh Rashedi, Hadis Menati, Shkufeh Akbari
Pages: 17-30


Whit the advent of the industrial revolation in the 18 th century and the birth of the modern penal law schools, justification and legitimization of the capital- punishment were the most recent concerns of philosophers and thinkers in the field of the normative ethical. In the normative ethical charter, there are two major theoies, the task- orinted theory, and the other ultimate- orrented theory, the two theories have been defined and interpreted during the history, but the sharing point of the both judgments about correctness or rnaccuracy of human behavior, therefore justification of 1. Retribution and the principles of criminalization and punishment in the field of the normative ethics (task- orinted and ultimate- oriented) is discussed. The most principle drstinction criterion between task – oriented form ultimate-oriented in justification of the death- penalty is the relation and and proportion between the right and benefit. The task- orinteds belive that welfore is the same that is created by acting of the death penalty, regardless of its consequences, they valorize for rnberently to enforce of the capital- punishment for the criminer as reward. The task- orinteds in enfore of the capital- punishment regard to the past and they belive a good acting, regardless of its possible consequnces it deserves admiration in the future. As a bad acting, regardless of its possible resulte and consequences it deserves punishment in the future. For this reason, in enforce the death- penalty, they use of the broader and winder concepts. And they lxlieve that jushe requires a criminal to be executed, even if with enforce of the copital- punisment it does not benefit for the society. But against ultimate- orinteds belive that the right cause the general welfar, then the capital- punishment is itself an evil and they consider it entirely consequential, because the copital- punishment is meaning ful when it creates good effects in the futur, otherwise it is completely futile. On the same basis, the purpose of the capital- punishment is not to annoy the sensitive creatur, nor the eliminate the crime which previously committed, but the purpose is to prevention of genenral and specificm so the capital- punishment is not itself worthiness and what is important is the socail benefit of punishment.

Call For Papers


[email protected]

specialty journal of politics and law
Issue 2, Volume 5, 2020