The Penal System and the Punishment

The honourable tone of Hythloday is inherently Christian, communal, and antiwar. It supposes that men be capable of creating and sustaining social structures that exhibit equating and communal ownership of property.

Hythloday tells of one kingdom he visits that frame primarily free of conflict and exhibits a just verbalize and contented citizenry. He is aghast at the fact that in England simple larceny is so great a criminal offense that it costs a man his life. As Hythloday asserts, "There was no reason to wonder at the matter, since this way of punishing thieves was uncomplete just in itself nor good for the public; for, as the roughness was too great, so the remedy was not effectual" (More 1516, 7). This conclude is similar to many contemporary sociologists and philosophers who argue that our punishments for casual drug users are also too good and not effective. The homogeneous goes for the "three strikes" legalitys adopted by many grounds, where for stealing a slice of pizza one man was given a life sentence because it was his third criminal conviction. Such severe punishments have been shown ineffective in the matter of significantly cut criminal activity.

The Cardinal takes exception to Hythloday's views that theft should not be a capital offense. The Cardinal argues that if the punishment for theft were to be mitigated,

it would only encourage sorrow men to commit more theft. Yet Hythloday reminds the Cardinal of God's law that is higher than manmade law. He in figure outs the Cardinal that chargeing for theft of a small material amount is not justification for the state breaking one of God's commandments, "God has commanded us not to kill, and shall we kill so easily for a little money?" (More 1516, 11). Hythloday insists that manmade laws do not supercede God's laws, regardless of how many men or of what rig might apply to such laws. His argument rests upon the new thought process of More's time, that political ideals and state rule should be based upon moral standards.

As Hythloday explains to the Cardinal, "For God having taken from us the right of disposing all of our own or of other masses's lives, if it is pretended that the mutual consent of men in making laws can authorize manslaughter in cases in which God has given us no example, that it frees people from the obligation of the perceive law, and so makes murder a licit action, what is this, but to give preference to human laws before the divine?" (More 1516, 11).

Hythloday's critique of the criminal justice system and punishment for theft is demonstrative of the views of his era, the main tenets of the Enlightenment and Renaissance. Underlying assumptions that help form the moral and political ideals of a just state include the premise that man is essentially good, that private property be abolished, and that both communal ownership and freedom of thought are achievable. We see some of these ideals expressed in Hythloday's explanation of how theft is dealt with in his utopian society. In this society, the thief's essentially good reputation is eventually brought out in him by a punishment that not only fits the crime but is effective and in the best interests of the state. The thief makes restitution to the owner, not the state. Instead of organism incarcerated and costing the state (
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.