Retributivism and Over-Punishment.

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Law and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s10982-021-09422-w
Douglas Husak
{"title":"Retributivism and Over-Punishment.","authors":"Douglas Husak","doi":"10.1007/s10982-021-09422-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lately it has become a commonplace to complain about the injustice of mass incarceration. I share the sentiment that this phenomenon has been an injustice. But it also has become orthodoxy to allege that the acceptance of a retributive penal philosophy has been one of the chief factors that has brought about mass incarceration in the first place. As a self-proclaimed retributivist, I find these allegations to be troubling and unwarranted. The point of this paper is to take steps to rebut them. I begin by making four conceptual points about retributivism. If I am correct, retributivism comes in countless flavors, and the particular variety to which I am most attracted can be applied to show why some punishments should be less severe than those presently imposed. Next I argue that many persons deserve less punishment than our legal system currently inflicts. Reflection about whether perpetrators should be afforded a complete or partial defense reveals retributivism to be less punitive than conventional wisdom would suggest.</p>","PeriodicalId":51702,"journal":{"name":"Law and Philosophy","volume":"41 2-3","pages":"169-191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8417646/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-021-09422-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Lately it has become a commonplace to complain about the injustice of mass incarceration. I share the sentiment that this phenomenon has been an injustice. But it also has become orthodoxy to allege that the acceptance of a retributive penal philosophy has been one of the chief factors that has brought about mass incarceration in the first place. As a self-proclaimed retributivist, I find these allegations to be troubling and unwarranted. The point of this paper is to take steps to rebut them. I begin by making four conceptual points about retributivism. If I am correct, retributivism comes in countless flavors, and the particular variety to which I am most attracted can be applied to show why some punishments should be less severe than those presently imposed. Next I argue that many persons deserve less punishment than our legal system currently inflicts. Reflection about whether perpetrators should be afforded a complete or partial defense reveals retributivism to be less punitive than conventional wisdom would suggest.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
报应主义与过度惩罚。
最近,抱怨大规模监禁的不公正已成为老生常谈。我也认为这种现象是不公正的。但是,声称接受报复性的刑罚哲学是导致大规模监禁的主要因素之一,也已经成为正统。作为一个自称的报复主义者,我认为这些指控令人不安,毫无根据。本文的重点是采取措施反驳他们。我首先就报复主义提出四个概念性观点。如果我是正确的,报应主义有无数种形式,而我最感兴趣的那种形式可以用来说明为什么有些惩罚应该比目前实施的惩罚轻一些。接下来,我认为许多人应该得到比我们目前的法律制度更少的惩罚。关于是否应该为犯罪者提供完全或部分辩护的反思,揭示了报应主义比传统智慧所暗示的惩罚要少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Philosophy
Law and Philosophy Multiple-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Law and Philosophy is a forum for the publication of work in law and philosophy which is of common interest to members of the two disciplines of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It is open to all approaches in both fields and to work in any of the major legal traditions - common law, civil law, or the socialist tradition. The editors of Law and Philosophy encourage papers which exhibit philosophical reflection on the law informed by a knowledge of the law, and legal analysis informed by philosophical methods and principles.
期刊最新文献
Climate Refugees and the Limits of Reparative Obligations to Offer Asylum The conceptual structure of perjury Arbitrary Power: Caricature and Concept Moves & Rules: Addressing the Puzzle of Social Rule-Following Recourse, Litigation, and the Rule of Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1