The Idea of a Justification for Punishment

Abstract
The argument between retributivists and consequentialists about what morally justifies the punishment of offenders is incoherent. If we were to discover that all of the contending justifications were mistaken, there is no realistic prospect that this would lead us to abandon legal punishment. Justification of words, beliefs and deeds, can only be intelligible on the assumption that if one's justification were found to be invalid and there were no alternative justification, one would be prepared to stop saying, believing or doing what one has attempted to justify. Therefore, the moral standing or basis of our practices of punishing offenders can not rest on a justification of it.
Keywords Philosophy of Punishment  Political Philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Nathan Hanna (2014). Retributivism Revisited. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
    James D. Marshall (1984). Punishment and Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education 13 (2):83-89.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-03-31

    Total downloads

    35 ( #41,655 of 1,088,389 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,389 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.