These two questions are similar in type and I am really confused by the textbook.

1) Which of the following objections to criminal punishment might be raised by a Kantian ethical framework?

A. Incapacitation amounts to using offenders to benefit the community.
B. Rehabilitation fails to respect the offenders' autonomy by not allowing them to decide for themselves what kind of people they wish to be.
C. Deterrence is akin to treating offenders like dogs rather than respecting their freedom and rationality.
D. All of the above.

2) Kantian (deontological) ethics justifies criminal punishment on which of the following grounds?

A. Retribution
B. Rehabilitation
C. Deterrence
D. Incapacitation

for each one I choose B. But I don't think the two should be the same. Please help me understand this.

Pat/Ethel/Erica -- please use the same name for your posts.

I disagree with both your answers. Study this site.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Punishment.htm

OK. Took the test. Question 1 answer is D. and Question 2 answer was A.

To understand the difference between the two questions, let's break them down and analyze each one separately.

Question 1 asks which objections to criminal punishment might be raised by a Kantian ethical framework. In this case, you need to consider how Kantian ethics, which emphasizes autonomy, dignity, and rationality, would view different aspects of criminal punishment. The correct answer would be the objection that aligns with Kantian principles.

Option A, "Incapacitation amounts to using offenders to benefit the community," does not align with a Kantian ethical framework because it focuses on the consequences for the community rather than the inherent moral principles.

Option B, "Rehabilitation fails to respect the offenders' autonomy by not allowing them to decide for themselves what kind of people they wish to be," aligns with a Kantian ethical framework because it emphasizes the importance of autonomy and individual decision-making.

Option C, "Deterrence is akin to treating offenders like dogs rather than respecting their freedom and rationality," also aligns with a Kantian ethical framework because it argues against treating offenders as mere objects and emphasizes respect for their freedom and rationality.

Option D, "All of the above," would be incorrect because Option A does not align with Kantian ethics. Therefore, the correct answer for question 1 would be B and C, which are objections that a Kantian ethical framework might raise against criminal punishment.

Moving on to question 2, it asks which grounds Kantian ethics justifies criminal punishment on. This question is asking for the justifications that align with a Kantian ethical framework, rather than objections against it.

Option A, "Retribution," aligns with a Kantian ethical framework because it focuses on the principle of moral responsibility and accountability for one's actions.

Option B, "Rehabilitation," does not align with a Kantian ethical framework as it emphasizes the instrumental goal of changing individuals for the benefit of society, rather than focusing on moral principles.

Option C, "Deterrence," also does not align with a Kantian ethical framework because it focuses on the consequentialist aspect of punishment, rather than moral principles.

Option D, "Incapacitation," does not align with a Kantian ethical framework because it emphasizes protecting society from potential harm, rather than moral principles.

Therefore, the correct answer for question 2 would be A, which is the ground that aligns with a Kantian ethical framework - retribution.

To summarize, while both questions address Kantian ethical perspectives on criminal punishment, the first question asks for objections that might be raised against punishment from a Kantian perspective, while the second question asks for justifications that align with a Kantian perspective. Therefore, the answers to the two questions are different.