The Philosophy of Responsibility and Punishment

Moritz Schlick (1939) poses the question "Who, in a given case, is to be punished? Who is to be considered the true wrongdoer?" He further elaborates on this question by telling us that the problem can be differentiated from that of the original instigating factor, such as inheritance of character traits, etc.

Schlick's question as to the punishment of the true wrongdoer in any given case assumes four things: While factors such as genetics and the home environment could easily influence the formation of the character traits leading up to the act of wrongdoing, remote causes are not reachable, nor can their level of contribution be determined. Therefore, only the reachable cause(s) can be punished; Free will plays a role in the ability to cause or prevent an act of wrongdoing; The doer must have acted upon a motive or caused another to do so in order to be punished; Blame for the act needs to be accurately pinpointed for punishment to be carried out.

Schlick's point is that remote causes are not sufficient enough to be used to determine blame or motive for wrongdoing; if a person practices free will in committing a wrongful act, he or she is clearly to blame and should ultimately be punished. However, there remains an underlying question as to the extent of the blame being placed on the person and how this affects the determination of who should face punishment in any given case.

Schlick's question is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. He does not offer up a specific definition of responsibility in this discussion, though he has elaborated on the matter in other works. Many would argue that the person who deserves the harshest of punishment is the person who physically committed the act of wrongdoing. However, this argument assumes that the person possesses both moral and causal responsibility, which is not always the case. There are mitigating factors which could cause a person to be causally responsible, without being the least bit morally responsible for the act. These include mental and physical illnesses, lack of understanding of what they are doing or have done and the consequences thereof, and having no control (free will) over the situation.

I would argue that these factors must be considered before blame and subsequent punishment can be determined. Secondly, I would argue that not only the person who has directly committed an act of wrongdoing should face punishment. If another person causes the act - through suggestion, abuse, demand, the promise of monetary or other gain, etc.- then they are just as culpable for the wrongdoing as the person who actually committed the crime. Likewise, anyone with foreknowledge of acts of wrongdoing - either through hearsay or direct knowledge - who knowingly allows the act to proceed, or one who deliberately hinders prosecution and justice in any way (though not directly involved in the act), is equally culpable and should face punishment as well

I do believe that any sentence handed down by the court should be in alignment with the charges of conviction. We certainly can't have murderers serving a year in prison while white-collar criminals serve 5--10 years or longer. Nevertheless, the only way to teach society the difference between right and wrong is to show everyone that wrongdoing will not be taken lightly and that the consequences of wrongdoing will be enforced.

Work's Cited

Schlick, Moritz. Problems of Ethics. (1939). Trans. David Rynin. Verona, NJ: Read Books, 2008. Print.