The Justification of Punishment: A Comment on Retribution and Deterrence

IF 2.5 Q2 Social Sciences ISRAEL LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 1991-01-01 DOI:10.1017/S0021223700010530
M. Gur‐Arye
{"title":"The Justification of Punishment: A Comment on Retribution and Deterrence","authors":"M. Gur‐Arye","doi":"10.1017/S0021223700010530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this comment I wish to defend Antony Duff's final conclusion; namely, that punishment is to be seen as a deterrent system constrained by requirements of justice. I shall do this, however, mainly by using John Kleinig's arguments. My aim is to show that although Kleinig himself rejects deterrence as part of punishment's justification, some of his arguments can best be defended if deterrence is taken into account. In the final section of the comment I shall return to Duff's arguments in this context, but only in order to raise some doubts as to their underlying assumption. Before doing so, let me compare, briefly, Duff's and Kleinig's attitudes which seem to be relevant to the purpose of this comment. Both Kleinig and Duff believe that, ideally, punishment is to be justified by retributive considerations. According to Kleinig, even in such an imperfect society as ours, punishment should still remain retributive.","PeriodicalId":44911,"journal":{"name":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","volume":"25 1","pages":"452 - 459"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0021223700010530","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700010530","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: 5

Abstract

In this comment I wish to defend Antony Duff's final conclusion; namely, that punishment is to be seen as a deterrent system constrained by requirements of justice. I shall do this, however, mainly by using John Kleinig's arguments. My aim is to show that although Kleinig himself rejects deterrence as part of punishment's justification, some of his arguments can best be defended if deterrence is taken into account. In the final section of the comment I shall return to Duff's arguments in this context, but only in order to raise some doubts as to their underlying assumption. Before doing so, let me compare, briefly, Duff's and Kleinig's attitudes which seem to be relevant to the purpose of this comment. Both Kleinig and Duff believe that, ideally, punishment is to be justified by retributive considerations. According to Kleinig, even in such an imperfect society as ours, punishment should still remain retributive.
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
惩罚的正当性:评报应与威慑
在这篇评论中,我想为安东尼·达夫的最后结论辩护;也就是说,惩罚应被视为一种受正义要求约束的威慑制度。然而,我将主要通过使用约翰·克莱格的论点来做到这一点。我的目的是要说明,尽管克莱因本人拒绝将威慑作为惩罚理由的一部分,但如果考虑到威慑,他的一些论点就能得到最好的辩护。在评论的最后一部分,我将在这个背景下回到达夫的论点,但只是为了对他们的基本假设提出一些怀疑。在此之前,让我简要地比较一下达夫和克莱因的态度,这似乎与这篇评论的目的有关。Kleinig和Duff都认为,在理想情况下,惩罚是由报应性考虑来证明的。根据Kleinig的观点,即使在我们这样一个不完美的社会里,惩罚仍然应该是报复性的。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Politics and Justice at the International Criminal Court The Effect of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine on Non-Human Animals: International Humanitarian Law Perspectives The Conduct of Hostilities, Attack Effects, and Criminal Accountability Charging Aggression as a Crime against Humanity? Revisiting the Proposal after Russia's Invasion of Ukraine How Misuse of Emergency Powers Dismantled the Rule of Law in Hungary
×
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:604180095
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