Does the punishment of criminals fit into deontological / Kantian morality?
If so, isn't this something akin to utilitarianism?I am familiar with the first one 50/50 or 75/25 in favor of "familiar", and for me it is something like "use the established rules and do not deviate from them in any case" (in particular, in Kant-set rules in which people will be the end (whatever that means), and do not have internal contradictions (if everyone followed the rule "break promises", promises would disappear and there would be nothing to break), and even worse nizza, it also becomes a means). You can't lie, you can't steal, etc…. But you can't restrict the freedom of movement of other people, and yet, with criminals, this is done for the benefit of other members of society. Is there a separate rule about them (as an exception to the general rule)? If this rule allows the infliction of harm for the sake of reducing its total number (there will be fewer crimes), then why can't other similar rules be invented and, if possible, how will all this differ from consequentialism (more precisely, from utilitarianism)?