Res Publica 16 (2) (2010)
|Abstract||Those who commit crime on a grand scale, numbering their victims in the thousands, seem to pose a special problem both for consequentialist and for non-consequentialist theories of punishment, a problem the International Criminal Court makes practical. This paper argues that at least one non-consequentialist theory of punishment, the fairness theory, can provide a justification of punishment for great crimes. It does so by dividing the question into two parts, the one of proportion which it answers directly, and the other of ‘anchoring points’ which it assigns to a broader theory of enforcement (which may have a non-consequentialist or consequentialist version).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Whitley Kaufman (2008). The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.
Alan Wertheimer (1977). Punishing the Innocent — Unintentionally. Inquiry 20 (1-4):45 – 65.
David Wood (2010). Punishment: Consequentialism. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Antony Duff (2003). Punishment, Communication and Community. In Derek Matravers & Jonathan E. Pike (eds.), Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology. Routledge, in Association with the Open University.
Matt Matravers (2000). Justice and Punishment: The Rationale of Coercion. Oxford University Press.
Matt K. Stichter (2010). Rescuing Fair-Play as a Justification for Punishment. Res Publica 16 (1):73-81.
D. Dolinko (1997). Retributivism, Consequentialism, and the Intrinsic Goodness of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 16 (5):507-528.
Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (02):206-.
Greg Roebuck & David Wood (2011). A Retributive Argument Against Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
Added to index2010-05-07
Total downloads15 ( #78,732 of 549,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?