Fostering justice and ensuring harmonious co-existence has been the priority of the human race. However, there are various forces that come into play; some are pulling in different directions. If the efficacy of one group is not felt by the rest of the society, then it should not be felt disrespectful or dishonorable. All the same, justice is a multifaceted and complex issue that some group holding to the utilitarian view feels it cannot be attained through capital punishment (Rachels and Rachels). For them, capital punishment is the needless suffering and does not promote general happiness. This essay agrees with the utilitarian view in the case where a rapist, Joe Smith has been exonerated, despite the serious claims.
Despite what Joe Smith has done and seems to be in a perpetual way of doing wrong things, it would not be a prudent idea to hit Joe Smith. There is a lot of baggage following him and still being on the wrong side. Nevertheless, there is no happiness in taking this action regardless of being right while driving the car. I absolutely agree with the utilitarian conclusion as it befits the true nature of events in day to day life. It is a hard truth that has been denied because of societal norms and the order that people have set for themselves.
Killing Joe Smith because of the opinion formed in mind would not help anybody. This even includes the women who have been raped. It is like the common saying, “Two wrongs do not make a right conclusion or opinion.” Everybody deserves justice in this case. The women are justified to seek compensation from Joe Smith. However, capital punishment would not help those women in any way. It is just some kind of an ego that would be fulfilled by one of the parties involved. The just thing to do is, therefore, to allow nature take its course and give everyone a chance to live and find a ransom from the resentment. When a wrong thing has happened, it will be of no use to apply another ‘wrong’ thing to correct the former. It is just a humiliating affair that does not help anyone. Simply, there is no notion of "justice" in the realm of utilitarianism and so I suppose.
Even if Joe Smith is killed, the judge who prescribes the sentence and the plaintiffs will not gain happiness. These actions do not provide happiness to the victims' families either; though, they present a picture that justice may be served. All the same, this is not the case. Human beings think that right is what socially acceptable as a value and norm in the society (Bentham 12-16). This version of justice makes the human pleased, but it may not actually be useful in any way.
The elements of justice that come into play in this case and from the human point of view are an exchange of sour feelings. Taking human rights into account, Joe Smith apparently has a right to be heard and a right to life. Killing is a creation of humanity and it does not become a right just because some panel of professionals put it that way. Human life cannot be gambled with. “An eye for an eye” apparently is what has taken dominion over the human race and based upon, Joe Smith deserves punishment. Consequently, the utilitarianism viewpoint is a great idea worthy of emulation.