Hukuman Sebagai Alat Pencegah Kejahatan: Tinjauan Dari Perspektif Filsafat Hukum Bentham dan Kant

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The ideas of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham regarding punishment reflect two distinct philosophical approaches. Kant defines punishment as a proportional retribution for a violation of the law, in line with the principle of retributivism. He asserts that punishment is not a means to achieve certain benefits, but rather a moral obligation based on the categorical imperative. Consequently, the death penalty for a murderer is considered a balanced form of justice. Meanwhile, Bentham, as a central figure in utilitarianism, views punishment as an instrument to prevent future crimes, both for the offender and for society at large. His perspective is rooted in the principle of The Greatest Happiness, which emphasizes collective benefit and welfare. Bentham’s thinking was influenced by earlier philosophers such as Protagoras, Epicurus, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes, and it laid the groundwork for later utilitarian thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer. This paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of the concept of punishment as a tool for crime prevention by examining the views of two major philosophers: Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Bentham, through a utilitarian approach, sees punishment as a means to prevent crime by maximizing happiness and minimizing societal suffering. In contrast, Kant, through a deontological approach, considers punishment a moral necessity based on the principle of justice, rather than on social utility. This scholarly article uses a qualitative research method with a literature study approach. Data are collected from various sources such as books, journals, and academic articles discussing the views of Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant on punishment. The thoughts of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham reflect two differing approaches in legal philosophy: retributivism and utilitarianism. Kant believes that punishment is a moral response proportionate to the crime, based on the principle of the categorical imperative. Punishment must be imposed for the sake of justice, not for social purposes or crime prevention. On the other hand, Bentham argues that the goal of punishment is to prevent crime and promote societal welfare. Based on the principle of utility, punishment should serve as a deterrent, protect society, and be proportional to the harm caused by the offense.