Crime, Punishment and the Aims of Justice

What Makes an Act Wrong?

Every legal system in the world rests on a shared moral assumption: some acts are wrong and deserve punishment. But what exactly makes an act wrong? Religious and philosophical traditions give different answers. Some traditions hold that morality is absolute — certain acts are always wrong regardless of context. Others argue for relative morality, where context determines whether an action is acceptable. Many traditions also appeal to conscience — the internal moral voice — as the key guide to ethical behaviour.

Christianity

Christian ethics sees sin as a fundamental category. An act is wrong if it breaks God’s commands, damages the human community, or rejects love. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) pushes ethics beyond outward behaviour to inward intention — Jesus taught that anger and contempt can themselves be forms of moral failure. On punishment, Christians hold diverse views. Many emphasise reformation: the goal of punishment should be to restore the offender, not merely to satisfy public anger. Prison chaplains across Britain embody this — they visit prisoners, offer pastoral care, and support rehabilitation programmes. Some Christians draw on the concept of agape to argue that even offenders deserve compassion and the possibility of change.

On the death penalty, Christian responses are divided. Exodus 20:13 commands “You shall not murder,” and many Christians interpret this as ruling out state execution. Matthew 5:38–39 reports Jesus challenging the principle of “an eye for an eye,” suggesting that retributive violence is not the final answer. Catholic teaching, expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2266–2267, acknowledges the state’s right to defend society but holds that the death penalty is “inadmissible” because it attacks human dignity. The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have consistently opposed capital punishment on these grounds.

Judaism

Jewish ethics grounds its understanding of crime in the Torah and rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin chapters 1 and 4) outlines the procedure for capital trials, requiring a majority of the Sanhedrin and two independent witnesses — standards so demanding that the Mishnah (Makkot 1:10) records Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah saying that a court which executes even once in seventy years is destructive. The later scholar Maimonides wrote these strict rules of evidence into his code of Jewish law. This caution reflects the principle that taking a human life is an irreversible act. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 states that saving one life is as if saving a whole world — a principle that shapes Jewish attitudes to both crime and punishment. Reform and Progressive Judaism today largely oppose the death penalty. Orthodox opinion is more varied but shares the Talmudic caution about irreversible punishment.

Islam

Islam teaches that justice (‘adl) is one of God’s core attributes and that human societies must reflect divine justice. The Qur’an (5:32) states that to save one life is as if saving all of humanity — a verse that underlines the seriousness of taking life. On punishment, the Qur’an (16:90) commands justice, kindness and giving to relatives. Shariah law includes hudud (fixed penalties for certain crimes) and ta’zir (discretionary penalties), but Islamic jurisprudence also requires very high standards of evidence before severe penalties can be applied. Many Muslim scholars argue that the conditions for hudud penalties can rarely be met in practice. On the death penalty, some Muslim scholars accept it for the most serious offences under precisely defined conditions; others argue the Qur’an’s emphasis on mercy should prevail.

Sikhism

Sikhism teaches that every human being carries the divine light of God (the Waheguru) within them. This belief directly informs Sikh attitudes to criminals: even an offender retains their God-given dignity. The Guru Granth Sahib (1241) teaches about God’s justice and mercy operating together. Sikhism values both justice and rehabilitation. On the death penalty, many Sikhs are influenced by ahimsa and the principle that life is sacred, though there is no single official Sikh position. The Sikh Rehat Maryada (code of conduct) does not explicitly address capital punishment, leaving room for diverse views within the community.

Buddhism

Buddhism views wrong action through the lens of “unskilful” or “unskilled” behaviour — actions that arise from greed, hatred or ignorance and create suffering. The story of Milarepa, a Tibetan figure who committed terrible crimes before becoming one of Tibet’s most revered spiritual teachers, illustrates the Buddhist conviction that transformation is always possible. The Angulimala Society (named after a notorious killer in the Pali scriptures who became a monk after meeting the Buddha) works in British prisons offering meditation and support to offenders. Buddhism strongly opposes the death penalty on the grounds of ahimsa (non-harm), karuna (compassion) and the Five Precepts, the first of which prohibits taking life.

Non-Religious Perspectives

Humanists and secular thinkers approach crime and punishment empirically — asking what works rather than what religious tradition prescribes. Most Humanists oppose capital punishment on the grounds that execution is irreversible, that miscarriages of justice cannot be corrected, and that the evidence for deterrence is weak. Humanists typically favour rehabilitation: if the purpose of punishment is to reduce harm, then changing the offender’s behaviour is more effective than purely retributive measures. Secular criminologists draw on the same empirical evidence base when arguing for prison reform.