“On Liberty”; “The Doctrine of Liberty in its Application to Morals”

In “The Doctrine of Liberty in its Application to Morals,” by James Stephen, Stephen believes that punishment is too harsh and does not do enough of what the original intent was.  So basically, Stephen thinks the criminal justice system needs to be changed in many ways, and is far more lenient than John Stuart Mill.  In “On Liberty,” Mill takes the stand that everyone should be responsible for their own actions, and that any harmful actions done to another man should be rightfully punished.  They both agree that personal vices should not be punished.  However, Mill insists that society has control, when in fact, as Stephen states; society has no control and is simply coerced by people within the society.  There can be no moral background if there is nothing of value from the people to begin with.

Mill has a more conservative view, which is not uncommon for this time period of 1850’s, while Stephen was far more liberal (but in the same time period) and believed that Mill was taking away citizens’ rights when dealing with morality and religion.  Stephen’s ideas, in my opinion, are far more logical and feasible than Mill’s.

The area within criminal justice is pretty black and white, and does not allow for much gray area to be toiled with.  Mill agrees with this, Stephen does not.  I agree with Stephen in that people should be punished differently for different crimes, and not just grouped into certain categories for which the judges and jury believe they fall.

I do agree with Stephen’s statement that jailing people puts them in a place where they do not want to be, therefore causing them to resent the law and further disobey it.  However, if you do not punish people who commit crimes, what else are you going to do with them…leave them on the streets to keep doing the wrong they’ve been doing? There are two sides to every story, and creating law can be a very subjective process.