Retributivism, State Misconduct, and the Criminal Process

Q2 Social Sciences Criminal Justice Ethics Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/0731129X.2023.2184964
A. Zimran, Netanel Dagan
{"title":"Retributivism, State Misconduct, and the Criminal Process","authors":"A. Zimran, Netanel Dagan","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2184964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"State agents’ misconduct (SAM), such as the violations carried out by the police or prosecution, may harm an offender’s rights during the criminal process in various ways. What, if anything, can retributivism, as an offense-focused theory that looks to the past, offer in response to SAM? The goal of this essay is to advance a retribution-based framework for responding to SAM within the criminal process. Two retribution-based arguments are provided. First, a retribution-based response to SAM aims to protect the legitimacy of the criminal process. Such an argument is based on how the crime and punishment connect to the moral standing of the state and that connection’s meaning for the legitimacy of the trial (legitimacy-based argument). Second, a retribution-based response to SAM aims to consider the offender’s side of the penal dialogue and promote a more accurate calibration of the penal suffering (compensation-based argument). Based on these arguments, the essay theorizes the legal response for SAM in US and non-US traditions through the retributive lens. The essay concludes with a call for expanding the multiple roles for retributive logic to include the actions of law-enforcement actors and addresses what that expansion means for the justice of the criminal process.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"20 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2184964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

State agents’ misconduct (SAM), such as the violations carried out by the police or prosecution, may harm an offender’s rights during the criminal process in various ways. What, if anything, can retributivism, as an offense-focused theory that looks to the past, offer in response to SAM? The goal of this essay is to advance a retribution-based framework for responding to SAM within the criminal process. Two retribution-based arguments are provided. First, a retribution-based response to SAM aims to protect the legitimacy of the criminal process. Such an argument is based on how the crime and punishment connect to the moral standing of the state and that connection’s meaning for the legitimacy of the trial (legitimacy-based argument). Second, a retribution-based response to SAM aims to consider the offender’s side of the penal dialogue and promote a more accurate calibration of the penal suffering (compensation-based argument). Based on these arguments, the essay theorizes the legal response for SAM in US and non-US traditions through the retributive lens. The essay concludes with a call for expanding the multiple roles for retributive logic to include the actions of law-enforcement actors and addresses what that expansion means for the justice of the criminal process.
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、国家不当行为与刑事诉讼
国家特工的不当行为(SAM),如警察或检察机关实施的侵犯行为,可能会在刑事诉讼过程中以各种方式损害罪犯的权利。如果有什么不同的话,作为一种着眼于过去的以进攻为中心的理论,报复主义能为SAM提供什么?本文的目的是提出一个基于报复的框架,以应对刑事诉讼中的SAM。提供了两个基于报复的论点。首先,对SAM的报复性回应旨在保护犯罪程序的合法性。这样的论点是基于犯罪和惩罚如何与国家的道德地位相联系,以及这种联系对审判合法性的意义(基于合法性的论点)。其次,对SAM的基于报复的回应旨在考虑罪犯在刑事对话中的立场,并促进对刑事痛苦的更准确校准(基于赔偿的论点)。基于这些论点,本文通过报复性的视角,对美国和非美国传统对SAM的法律回应进行了理论化。文章最后呼吁扩大报复逻辑的多重作用,将执法行为者的行为包括在内,并阐述这种扩大对刑事诉讼的公正性意味着什么。
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
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Ethics Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Exposing, Reversing, and Inheriting Crimes as Traumas from the Neurosciences to Epigenetics: Why Criminal Law Cannot Yet Afford A(nother) Biology-induced Overhaul Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics of the Rule Against Unreasonably Splitting a Case Ethical Resource Allocation in Policing: Why Policing Requires a Different Approach from Healthcare
×
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