Journal of Philosophy 75 (11):601-620 (1978)
|Abstract||This paper examines hart's model (1967) of the retributive theory. section i criticizes the model for not answering all the main questions to which a theory of punishment should be addressed, as hart alleges it does. section ii criticizes the model for its omission of the concept of desert. section iii criticizes attempts by card (1973) and by von hirsch (1976) to provide new ways of proportioning punitive severity to criminal injury. section iv discusses the idea of retribution in justifying aim and criticizes the theory of fingarette (1977). the conclusion is that the new retributivists have not solved the problems inherent to older versions of the theory|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Raffaele Rodogno (2010). Guit, Anger, and Retribution. Legal Theory 16 (1):59-76.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Retribution, Forgiveness, and the Character Creation Theory of Punishment. Social Theory and Practice 33 (1):75-103.
Thom Brooks (2005). Kantian Punishment and Retributivism: A Reply to Clark. Ratio 18 (2):237–245.
Whitley Kaufman (2008). The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.
Carlos Gómez-Jara, Communicative Retribution as a Constructivist Theory of Punishment - Penal Pain as a Communicative Artifact?
Oliver D. Crisp (2003). Divine Retribution: A Defence. Sophia 42 (2):35-52.
J. Angelo Corlett (2001). Making Sense of Retributivism. Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (02):206-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads112 ( #6,237 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #13,420 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?