Getting Proportionality in Perspective: Philosophy, History, and Institutions

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Crime and Justice-A Review of Research Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1086/715030
N. Lacey
{"title":"Getting Proportionality in Perspective: Philosophy, History, and Institutions","authors":"N. Lacey","doi":"10.1086/715030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conceptual debates about proportionality and its moral and political force need to be placed in historical and institutional context. Conceptual, moral, political, and practical questions about proportionality are inextricably linked. This insight should lead us away from the dominant conception of proportionality as a moral precept and toward a political conception of proportionality that is inevitably shaped by prevailing conceptions of what proportionality is for and, in modern democracies, is grounded in democratic practices and the institutional structures of democratic states. This insight has important implications for the prevailing disciplinary division of labor, calling into question the tendency to separate conceptual and philosophical from social theories of punishment. It is important to try to understand the conditions under which stable constraints on the state’s power to punish, and accountability mechanisms adequate to guaranteeing the fittingness of punishment by reference to democratically endorsed standards—which seem to be the key animating concerns of contemporary appeals to proportionality—are most likely to be realized, and conversely where they are likely to be most under threat. This is both an important issue in itself, and a case study in the interaction between concept and context.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"77 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Conceptual debates about proportionality and its moral and political force need to be placed in historical and institutional context. Conceptual, moral, political, and practical questions about proportionality are inextricably linked. This insight should lead us away from the dominant conception of proportionality as a moral precept and toward a political conception of proportionality that is inevitably shaped by prevailing conceptions of what proportionality is for and, in modern democracies, is grounded in democratic practices and the institutional structures of democratic states. This insight has important implications for the prevailing disciplinary division of labor, calling into question the tendency to separate conceptual and philosophical from social theories of punishment. It is important to try to understand the conditions under which stable constraints on the state’s power to punish, and accountability mechanisms adequate to guaranteeing the fittingness of punishment by reference to democratically endorsed standards—which seem to be the key animating concerns of contemporary appeals to proportionality—are most likely to be realized, and conversely where they are likely to be most under threat. This is both an important issue in itself, and a case study in the interaction between concept and context.
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
透视比例性:哲学、历史与制度
关于相称性及其道德和政治力量的概念辩论需要置于历史和制度背景下。关于相称性的概念、道德、政治和实践问题密不可分。这一见解应使我们摆脱比例作为一种道德准则的主导概念,转向比例的政治概念,这种概念不可避免地受到比例的普遍概念的影响,在现代民主国家,这种概念以民主实践和民主国家的制度结构为基础。这一见解对主流的学科分工有着重要的启示,使人们对惩罚的概念和哲学与社会理论分离的趋势产生了质疑。重要的是,要努力了解在什么条件下,国家惩罚权力的稳定约束,以及足以通过参照民主认可的标准来保证惩罚的适当性的问责机制,最有可能实现——这似乎是当代呼吁相称性的主要关注点,相反,他们最可能受到威胁的地方。这本身就是一个重要问题,也是概念与语境互动的一个案例研究。
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
Crime and Justice-A Review of Research
Crime and Justice-A Review of Research CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research is a refereed series of volumes of commissioned essays on crime-related research subjects published by the University of Chicago Press. Since 1979 the Crime and Justice series has presented a review of the latest international research, providing expertise to enhance the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists. The series explores a full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and its cure.
期刊最新文献
The Criminalization of Dissent and Protest Why Americans Are a People of Exceptional Violence Victimization and Its Consequences over the Life Course (Re)Considering Personality in Criminological Research Against All Odds: The Unexplained Sexual Recidivism Drop in the United States and Canada
×
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