An actor is justified, on this common view, if the scales of utility tilt in favor of the illegal action he chose. The critical commentary I provide below on many of these essays should be taken as an attempt to enter into dialogue with the various views, and by no means as a negative judgment on the quality of the volume.
But of course the innocent and the guilty are not equal in number. But something—something other than the kind of payment that an insurance company could fund—can be done to address the wrongfulness of the death, which is what concerns us here, since it helps us to see what kind of response to wrongdoing could be appropriate.
But they are also found among theoretical defenders of retribution, who are too prone to portray criminal punishment as consisting simply in the deliberate infliction of suffering on passive recipients who are said to deserve it.
How can we do that. They are found most obviously among political advocates, in the depressingly familiar penal rhetoric that makes it sound as if the sole aim of a system of criminal justice is to inflict harsh suffering on offenders.
More broadly, DeGirolami like Cahill argues for a pluralistic understanding of criminal doctrines such as the necessity defense and its myriad details, rather than attempting to find conceptual purity of theoretical explanation.
Buccafusco, and Jonathan S. Essays on Theory and Policy Mark D. Has it a Future. Toward a New System of Crime Control. We need now to ask how or on what basis citizens can punish each other: It is based upon sources believed to be accurate and reliable and is intended to be current as of the time it was written.
He has published two books on criminal punishment Trials and Punishments, ; Punishment, vii viii Notes on Contributors Communication, and Community,and has written widely on other aspects of the philosophy of criminal law most recently in Answering for Crime: Punishment communicates censure from the polity to the offender, with a view to persuading him to attend to that censure, to face up to the wrong he has done, and therefore also to recognize the need to mend his ways.
That calling is in part a request for Retrieving Retributivism 13 an explanation of what we do not already know about what happened and why. In particular, if we set aside appeals to parsimony or mercy, can bulk discounts be defended on grounds of proportionality.
If we are ambitious, we might hope to articulate the one true political theory and to draw from it the one true theory of punishment. New Perspectives with Irene van Staveren; Routledge,among others.
I cannot even sketch such larger theories here;28 but in the following section, I will try to sketch enough of them to show what kind of retributivism I think we can and should defend. If, as a result of the injury you caused me, I face a life of pain and serious disability, I might reasonably deny that what is provided amounts even to partial or incomplete compensation for my loss as distinct from what might be complete compensation for some material aspects of that loss.
Perhaps she recognizes one suspect from previous warrants, or she thinks he may be key to a larger ongoing investigation. Ours is a world of scarce resources, and has long been so; resource constraints did not emerge fresh with the current economic malaise.
Also, to confirm that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments, traditional legal research techniques should be used, including checking primary sources where appropriate.
Yet it appears that a few Cold Warriors have not accepted the new reality and are still fighting the last war. In Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, Professor Mark D. White and his contributors offer analysis and explanations of new developments in retributivism, the philosophical account of punishment that holds that wrongdoers must be punished as a matter of right, duty, or justice, rather than to serve some general social purpose.
Abstract. Retributivism – broadly defined as the view that punishment is justified and motivated by considerations of justice, rights, and desert, rather than by personal or societal consequences – holds a long-standing yet controversial position in legal and political philosophy.
Retribution and Capital Punishment. RETRIBUTIVISM: ESSAYS ON THEORY ON PRACTICE, Mark D. White, ed., Oxford University Press, Corrections & Sentencing Law & Policy eJournal.
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic FOLLOWERS This book offers analysis and explanations of new developments in retributivism, the philosophical account of punishment that holds that wrongdoers must be punished as a matter of right, duty, or justice, rather than to serve some general social purpose such as deterrence or individual purpose such as rehabilitation of the criminal or the vengeance of the victim.
Retributivism Essays on Theory and Policy Edited by Mark D.
White. Describes the relevance of retributivism to current debates over capital punishment, entrapment, excessive sentencing, and the necessity defense. This book offers analysis and explanations of new developments in retributivism, the philosophical account of punishment that holds that wrongdoers must be punished as a matter of right, duty, or justice, rather than to serve some general social purpose such as deterrence or individual purpose such as rehabilitation of the criminal or the .Retributivism essays on theory and policy