Graduate studies at Western
Law and Philosophy 1 (1):57 - 76 (1982)
|Abstract||Criteria for a successful theory of punishment include first, that it specify a reasonable limit to punishments in particular cases, and second, that it allow benefits to outweigh costs in a penal institution.It is argued that traditional utilitarian and retributive theories fail to satisfy both criteria, and that they cannot be coherently combined so as to do so. Retributivism specifies a reasonable limit in its demand that punishment equal crime, but this limit fails to allow benefits to outweigh costs of punishing. Utilitarians demand the latter but cannot guarantee the former. Combinations continue to violate one requirement or the other.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nathan Hanna (2008). Say What? A Critique of Expressive Retributivism. Law and Philosophy 27 (2):123-150.
Larry Alexander (1983). Retributivism and the Inadvertent Punishment of the Innocent. Law and Philosophy 2 (2):233 - 246.
Greg Roebuck & David Wood (2011). A Retributive Argument Against Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
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.
Shawn J. Bayern, The Significance of Private Burdens and Lost Benefits for a Fair-Play Analysis of Punishment.
David Wood (2010). Punishment: Consequentialism. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Thom Brooks (2005). Kantian Punishment and Retributivism: A Reply to Clark. Ratio 18 (2):237–245.
J. Angelo Corlett (2001). Making Sense of Retributivism. Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads66 ( #16,566 of 727,600 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 727,600 )
How can I increase my downloads?