A Critical Study of the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

The Humanitarian Theory of punishment, as defined by philosopher Karl Menninger in The Crime of Punishment, states that "to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. [...] the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal." The Humanitarian theory (HT) removes the Retributive theory (punishment because of desert) from the concept of punishment, and with it, a vital link between justice and society's role in deciding it. Lewis is rational in fearing that control of the justice system, under these circumstances, would be relegated to "experts," and criminals would lose their rights as humans. Lewis's alternative system, which includes punishment because of desert along with the HT, is the most desired. Additionally, punishment because of desert is not driven by revenge, but by humanity's drive to maintain controls on their society, and is therefore completely legitimate and not immoral as Menninger suggests.