A Truce in Criminal Law’s Distributive Principle Wars?

IF 0.4 Q2 Social Sciences New Criminal Law Review Pub Date : 2020-11-27 DOI:10.1525/nclr.2020.23.4.565
P. Robinson
{"title":"A Truce in Criminal Law’s Distributive Principle Wars?","authors":"P. Robinson","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2020.23.4.565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crime-control utilitarians and retributivist philosophers have long been at war over the appropriate distributive principle for criminal liability and punishment, with little apparent possibility of reconciliation between the two. In the utilitarians’ view, the imposition of punishment can be justified only by the practical benefit that it provides: avoiding future crime. In the retributivists’ view, doing justice for past wrongs is a value in itself that requires no further justification. The competing approaches simply use different currencies: fighting future crime versus doing justice for past wrongs.\n It is argued here that the two are in fact reconcilable, in a fashion. We cannot declare a winner in the distributive principle wars but something more like a truce. Specifically, good utilitarians ought to support a distributive principle based upon desert because the empirical evidence suggests that doing justice for past wrongdoing is likely the most effective and efficient means of controlling future crime. A criminal justice system perceived by the community as conflicting with its principles of justice provokes resistance and subversion, whereas a criminal justice system that earns a reputation for reliably doing justice is one whose moral credibility inspires deference, assistance, and acquiescence, and is more likely to have citizens internalize its norms of what is truly condemnable conduct.\n Retributivists ought to support empirical desert as a distributive principle because, while it is indeed distinct from deontological desert, there exists an enormous overlap between the two, and it seems likely that empirical desert may be the best practical approximation of deontological desert. Indeed, some philosophers would argue that the two are necessarily the same.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2020.23.4.565","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: 1

Abstract

Crime-control utilitarians and retributivist philosophers have long been at war over the appropriate distributive principle for criminal liability and punishment, with little apparent possibility of reconciliation between the two. In the utilitarians’ view, the imposition of punishment can be justified only by the practical benefit that it provides: avoiding future crime. In the retributivists’ view, doing justice for past wrongs is a value in itself that requires no further justification. The competing approaches simply use different currencies: fighting future crime versus doing justice for past wrongs. It is argued here that the two are in fact reconcilable, in a fashion. We cannot declare a winner in the distributive principle wars but something more like a truce. Specifically, good utilitarians ought to support a distributive principle based upon desert because the empirical evidence suggests that doing justice for past wrongdoing is likely the most effective and efficient means of controlling future crime. A criminal justice system perceived by the community as conflicting with its principles of justice provokes resistance and subversion, whereas a criminal justice system that earns a reputation for reliably doing justice is one whose moral credibility inspires deference, assistance, and acquiescence, and is more likely to have citizens internalize its norms of what is truly condemnable conduct. Retributivists ought to support empirical desert as a distributive principle because, while it is indeed distinct from deontological desert, there exists an enormous overlap between the two, and it seems likely that empirical desert may be the best practical approximation of deontological desert. Indeed, some philosophers would argue that the two are necessarily the same.
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
刑法分配原则之战的休战?
控制犯罪的功利主义者和报复主义哲学家长期以来一直在为刑事责任和惩罚的适当分配原则而争论不休,两者之间几乎没有明显的和解可能性。在功利主义者看来,惩罚的实施只有在它提供的实际利益——避免未来的犯罪——的情况下才是正当的。在报应主义者看来,为过去的错误伸张正义本身就是一种价值,不需要进一步的辩护。竞争的方法只是使用不同的货币:打击未来的犯罪与为过去的错误伸张正义。本文认为,在某种程度上,这两者实际上是可以调和的。在分配原则的战争中,我们不能宣布谁是赢家,而只能宣布休战。具体地说,优秀的功利主义者应该支持基于公平的分配原则,因为经验证据表明,为过去的不法行为伸张正义可能是控制未来犯罪的最有效和最有效的手段。一个被社会认为与正义原则相冲突的刑事司法系统会引发反抗和颠覆,而一个以可靠地伸张正义而闻名的刑事司法系统,其道德信誉会激发人们的顺从、帮助和默许,并且更有可能让公民内化其规范的真正应受谴责的行为。报应主义应该支持经验沙漠作为一种分配原则,因为尽管它确实与义务论沙漠不同,但两者之间存在着巨大的重叠,而且似乎经验沙漠可能是义务论沙漠的最佳实践近似。事实上,一些哲学家会认为这两者必然是相同的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Focused on examinations of crime and punishment in domestic, transnational, and international contexts, New Criminal Law Review provides timely, innovative commentary and in-depth scholarly analyses on a wide range of criminal law topics. The journal encourages a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches and is a crucial resource for criminal law professionals in both academia and the criminal justice system. The journal publishes thematic forum sections and special issues, full-length peer-reviewed articles, book reviews, and occasional correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Algorithmic Decision-Making When Humans Disagree on Ends Editor’s Introduction The Limits of Retributivism Bringing People Down The Conventional Problem with Corporate Sentencing (and One Unconventional Solution)
×
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