Surname 1

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Punishment and penal substitution
Punishment is infliction of a penalty for an offence or rather a wrong doing. Immoral
behaviors or actions are in most cases punishable through deterrence of the offenders from
repeating the action and protecting others Personal, cultural values, social mores and code of
conduct define a persons morality by specifying what is right or wrong (North, 1987 p.500). A
person is moral when he can make differentials of decisions, intentions and actions between
proper functions and those involving omission of proper functioning. Values are guidelines
through which people make decisions about good and evil, right or wrong, should and should not
(North, 1987 p.500). A person can be immoral but still adhering to values showing that morals
have a higher social element to values. There are however philosophical disputes concerning the
role of punishment in the society. Is punishment for the protection of others, deterrence,
retribution, reform, compensation or any other combination? (Lewis, 2012 p.191). The paper
bases its argument on the role of punishment for actions that are contra to morality. It also aims
to answer the question whether punishment is moral and if it should be allowed for punishment
substitution.
Punishment being one of the forms of instilling moral behavior has had so many disputes
and rejection. Those who argue against it say that it is morally wrong to punish a person on basis

Surname 2

of guilt and degree of guilt as they depend on external factors out of human control
(Zimmerman, 2011 p.1). Zimmerman argues that punishment does not as though by many
reduce the rates of crime but rather increases the probability of immoral action in future for those
people found guilty. He argues that crime prevention through rehabilitation, deterrence or
incapacitation do not justify punishment. Punishment based on retributivism requires
proportionality between offences and punishment. The retributive notion that offenders deserve
punishment is incompatible with blameworthiness for an overall moral wrong of people
(Zimmerman, 2011 p.2). According to Zimmerman, punishment substitution between individuals
can occur only and only if the offender acts on behalf of the person deserving punishment in that
case. Punishment therefore become immoral according to his argument on the basis of its effects
on the people as it does not consider the uncontrolled factors that determine the guiltiness of an
individual.
Zimmerman concludes that punishment is morally wrong and ineffective in the
prevention of moral crimes (Zimmerman, 2011 p. 4). According to his argument, penal
substitution is entirely applicable only where the person taking the blame is indeed the real
offender otherwise penal substitution is not optimal in moral crime prevention and deterrence.
According to his view therefore penal substitution is not a moral thing to do especially where
there is involvement of an innocent person as the volunteer. He therefore argues that punishment
should be replaced with non-punitive measures or involves the direct person involved in a crime
to the punitive action.
Penal substitution is a situation where one individual takes the blame and punished for a
moral wrongdoing of another person. Penal substitution is a difficult and most complex issue to
deal with in certain cases. Morally according to Lewis (2012), punishment should be directly

Surname 3

instilled to the person who is guilty rather than anyone thought of having committed a moral
offence. Penal substitution deliberately allows the innocent to be punished instead of the guilty
one. Most of the people according to Lewis, believe that penal substitution is just especially
demonstrated by the Christians who think that Jesus Christ died so that their sins get forgiven.
Penal substitution is a voluntary action taken by a person in a situation where a moral
wrongdoing has occurred. How moral is it for a person to suffer for another persons mistake?
As Christians believe, penal substitution is a just thing and, in fact, a moral act of saving others
(Lewis, 2012 p.191). If this is the situation, many wrong doing will go unpunished, and the act of
substituting punishment will further encourage or give incentives to the wrongdoers to continue
with their moral wrongs (North, 1987 p.505). Despite the fact that Christians believe that Jesus
died for the forgiveness of their sins, they continue with their sinful ways making the desire for
penal substitution not optimal.
Ordinarily people have a two-faced view of punishment for moral wrongs. On one side,
people believe that penal substitution is morally wrong by considering the act of another person
paying fines for the guilty party as bad. On the other hand people think that penal substitution is
okay. That is the reason to why God sent his only Son Jesus to come and volunteer to die for the
sins of others (Lewis, 2012 p.190). Punishment is thus most effective where the person who is
guilty directly suffers the punitive action installed. According to Lewis (2012), making
punishment more effective should ensure that use of fines in courts as a disciplinary action
eliminated since it is another form of penal substitution. If the concern of punishment is ensuring
that the offender suffers, then flogging or imprisonment or even death penalty and community
service would be the optimal punishment criteria.

Surname 4

Lewis argument on the issue morality, punishment and penal substitution based on
punishing the people who are directly linked to the moral wrong rather than those willing to take
punitive action in place of the guilty. The argument is deductively applicable since the people
who commit offences are the only ones liable for the actions they take and deserve punishment
despite their position on the act. Another thesis based on Lewis argument is that people who
commit an offence whole-heartedly need severe punishment and those who commit the offence
half heartedly should be punished more leniently (Lewis, 2012 p. 193). The reason for such kind
of treatment is that the case with half-hearted attempt did have some thought of not committing
the crime, and that is why the attempt failed. They, therefore, deserve some consideration when
the decision on the punitive action is being arrived at as compared to those who committed the
crime whole-heartedly. The disciplinary judgment is therefore inductively arrived at since it aims
at changing the way criminal offences dealt with in courts.
Comparisons
The two arguments have agreed and disagreed on particular issue concerning punishment
and penal substitution. The two cases agree that penal substitution is not a morally optimal thing
to be the community. Despite the fact that many people in the Christian religion believe on the
issue of punishment substitution through Christ the decision on substituting punishment to other
persons is not optimal (Lewis, 2012 p.189). Zimmermans argument presents a condition in
which penal substitution can occur but with a review of the state the argument fundamentally
rejects the issue of punishment change. A punitive action substituted if and only if the person it is
being transferred to had an impact on the individual who committed the crime on his behalf
(Zimmerman, 2011 p.3). The real offender, in this case, is the person who takes the blame
implying that punishment was installed on the direct perpetrator.

Surname 5

The two arguments also agree on the issue of fines being a scheme to shield the real
offender from the punitive action. According to Lewis (2012), if real punishment instituted then
fines are not the right instruments for punishments. Fines do not make the offender suffer for his
action but rather substitutes the penalty and allowing him to walk free just like any other
innocent people. Zimmermans argument shows that when a fine get instituted on an offender,
the chance that the person will repeat the act is high. The reasonbeing that the impact produced
by the fine does not demotivate the person on further attempt on criminal acts Zimmerman,
2011). Their are two arguments, therefore, have common similarities in rejecting penal
substitution and institution of fines as a method of punishment. Despite the similarities, the
arguments differ in the following ways.
Lewis argument states that punishment is a moral thing to do for people commit moral
wrong while Zimmermans argument disagrees on the issue of punishment. According to Lewis
(2012) punishing offenders help prevent criminal activities and also deter the offender from
doing further harm to people. The essence of punishing is to keep off those who intend to
commit a crime and prevent the ones who have committed crimes from doing further harm.
Zimmerman argues that punishment is immoral and does not help reduce or prevent moral
crimes but rather may increase the chances of increasing these activities.
Methods uses in the two arguments
The argument presented by Zimmerman suggests that moral wrongs can be reduced using
other ways other than punishment. The non-punitive methods of reducing wrong doing and
promoting social stability include social justice, non-punitive incapacitation and restriction.
Social justice according to Zimmerman includes acts like fair food distribution, education,

Surname 6

housing and employment. If some social issues are addressed, the likehood of committing
offences by people highly reduce. Most of the moral crimes committed are associated with social
factors like hunger, and unemployment issues. According to Zimmerman, addressing these issues
will have a positive impact on stability promotion and reduction of crimes. Non-incapacitation
forms of reducing crime include treatment and rehabilitation in cases where the offender is a
drug, addict. Instead of installing punitive acts like imprisonment may help deter crime. When an
offender taken to a rehabilitation institution, the chance of him committing the same offence is
little.
The argument brought by Lewis suggests that punishment is morally right for any
criminal act done by any individual. He specifies the punitive action on different people with a
view of their involvement in illegal activities. Lewis believes that punishment deter people from
committing moral wrongs. The punitive action involves death penalty and imprisonment for the
offenders. The two argument appreciate different ways of preventing moral wrongs with
Zimmermans view understanding non-punitive methods while the Lewis view consider punitive
action on the prevention of moral wrongdoing.
Despite the agreements in the two arguments, there are those differences that make one of
the superior than the other in the way forward in addressing the criminal offences. The argument
raised by Lewis is more of instilling punishment to criminals and avoiding punishment
substitution among the offender and the volunteer. Punishing criminals does not help them
change but rather make them suffer the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, the
argument by Zimmerman advocates for non-punitive actions in prevention of moral wrongs. The
essence of the non-punitive is to correct the offenders and discourage further wrong doing. The

Surname 7

method involves job creation, housing, fair food distribution and other factors like nursing
services.
An analysis of the two arguments shows that the non-punitive approach that is advocated
by Zimmerman is more superior in the following ways. The punitive acts in most cases do not
provide a way of change but rather subject the offender to suffering. The imprisoning offender
does not give then the motivation for change but instead make them adapt to the prison walls and
lack the fear of being taken there for another term after committing the same or other crimes.
Imprisonment put those first offenders that would have otherwise changed to become harder to
control as they mix with other criminals who are worse off making them emulated a new
behavior. After their term in prison, these people come out with new knowledge on criminal and
the chances of them committing even severe crimes are high.
It is, therefore, evident that punitive measures are less useful in control and prevention of
crime. A more efficient way suggested by Zimmerman is the use of social factors that in most
cases are the main contributors to criminal activities. Addressing issues like employment and
food distribution will help greatly in reducing chances of crime (Zimmerman, 2011 p.4).
Provision of social factors is therefore optimal in prevention of crime. Rehabilitation and
medication are other ways that do not make the offender suffer but rather help correct his
behavior. The argument raised by Zimmerman is therefore superior in addressing the issue of
crime prevention as compared to that raised by Lewis. A morally right action on prevention of
crime should not only focus on eliminating the chances of committing crime but also correcting
the people involved. Non-punitive method is more likely to produce these results accompanied
with stability promotion.

Surname 8

Conclusion
Morality and value are important factors in any community and defining what should and
shouldnt be done is an important thing in ensuring stability and relation of people of a
community. There is however moral wrongs that sometime occur that are associated with the
situation of the people involve or maybe personal traits. Prevention of occurrence of these
wrongs is of great essence in insuring that the people who commit these wrongs take
responsibility and those affected get justice. Punishment is one of the methods used in prevention
of moral wrongs. Punishment substitution is one of the source of negative effects of punishment
that leads to the innocent being punished in place of the guilty. A more rational way to prevent
these offences is the application of non-punitive measures which are socially appealing and
effective for long term impact.

Surname 9

Work cited
David Lewis. Great Philosophical Arguments. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012
North, Joanna. "Wrong doing and forgiveness." Philosophy 62.242 (1987): 499-508.
Zimmerman Michael. The Immorality of Punishment. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2011