Res Publica 16 (2):181-196 (2010)
|Abstract||This paper argues that there is a default presumption that punishment has some deterrent effect, and that the burden of proof is upon those who allege that the costs of any particular penal system are insufficient to offset its deterrent benefits. This burden of proof transmits to the discussion of international law, with the conclusion that it is those who oppose international jurisdiction, rather than their opponents, who must prove their position. This they have so far failed to do.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thaddeus Metz (2012). Punishment. In Deen Chatterjee (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Justice. Springer.
Peter van Inwagen (1980). Compatibilism and the Burden of Proof. Analysis 40 (March):98-100.
Douglas Walton (2008). A Dialogical Theory of Presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
David Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
Anthony Ellis (2003). A Deterrence Theory of Punishment. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):337–351.
Shawn J. Bayern, The Significance of Private Burdens and Lost Benefits for a Fair-Play Analysis of Punishment.
Thorsten Sander (2003). Beweislastverteilung Und Intuitionen in Philosophischen Diskursen. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 34 (1):69-97.
Michael Clark & Peter Cave (2010). Nowhere to Run? Punishing War Crimes. Res Publica 16 (2):197-207.
Juha Räikkä (1997). Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism. Argumentation 11 (4):463-477.
Tim Dare & Justine Kingsbury (2008). Putting the Burden of Proof in Its Place: When Are Differential Allocations Legitimate? Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (4):503-518.
Added to index2010-03-20
Total downloads28 ( #44,838 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?