1. The state has the duty to achieve a specified object.The primary goal of the utilitarian view, Moore argues, is deterrence. For this reason,
2. Laws are the instruments by which the state is to reach its object.
3. Infractions of the law frustrate the achievement of the object.
4. The state has the right to punish infractions of the law so far as this is necessary to achieve its object and within the limits established by the nature of its object.
A penal system that hopes to deter crime cannot tolerate exceptions. Punishment deters crime not only in criminals themselves, by reforming or disabling them, but in others as well, by setting an example. The first sort of deterrence, specific deterrence, is important. But, because it affects the actions of so many more people, the second sort of deterrence is proportionally more important.Now we're at an interesting juncture. Does a plea bargain in exchange for testimony conflict with the second kind of deterrence? If so, under utilitarianism, we vote Aff.
If not, because of other utilitarian considerations, we vote Neg.