Retributivism, free will skepticism and the public health-quarantine model: replies to Corrado, Kennedy, Sifferd, Walen, Pereboom and Shaw

Abstract

I would like to begin by thanking Michael Corrado, Chloë Kennedy, Katrina Sifferd, Alec Walen, Derk Pereboom and Elizabeth Shaw for their astute and challenging comments on my book, Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice. It is seldom that one gets the opportunity to put their views to the test by responding to six of the leading figures in their field. While I have had only the briefest time to consider their comments, and more prolonged reflection would no doubt yield more insights, I have already benefited greatly by wrestling with their perceptive criticisms. In this article, I outline the objections, suggestions and critical points presented by each commentor and respond to each as best I can. While I dedicate more space to some challenges than others, this is not a reflection of the quality of the commentaries but is instead due to a limitation on time and space. There is also occasional overlap between the commentaries, and it makes more sense to address common criticisms only once. I begin by responding to Michael Corrado and then proceed in the order indicated in the subtitle.