David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (2):217-230 (2013)
This paper is concerned with the tensions that arise when one juxtaposes one important liberal understanding of the nature and use of state power in circumstances of pluralism and (broadly) retributive accounts of punishment. The argument is that there are aspects of the liberal theory that seem to be in tension with aspects of retributive punishment, and that these tensions are difficult to avoid because of the attractiveness of precisely those features of each account. However, a proper understanding of both liberalism and retributive punishment allows us to dissolve some of the tensions whilst also bringing each position into sharper relief. The paper begins by introducing the liberal position and outlining the apparent tensions that may arise with retributive punishment. In so doing, there is also a brief discussion of how this debate relates to the more familiar dispute between legal moralists and their opponents. The paper then proceeds by considering each of the areas of tension in turn
|Keywords||Liberalism Retributivism Legal moralism Impartialism Punishment Criminalization|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Brian Barry (2001). Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Polity Press.
Brian M. Barry (1995). Justice as Impartiality. Oxford University Press.
Antony Duff (2007). Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law. Hart Pub..
Joel Feinberg (1987). Some Unswept Debris From the Hart-Devlin Debate. Synthese 72 (2):249 - 275.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Matt Matravers (2000). Justice and Punishment: The Rationale of Coercion. Oxford University Press.
Christopher Bennett (2001). Punishment, Moral Community and Moral Argument: A Review of R.A. Duff,Punishment, Communication and Communityand Matt Matravers,Justice and Punishment: The Rationale of Coercion. [REVIEW] Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 4 (3):101-119.
Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen (2011). A Conflict Between Representation and Neutrality. Philosophical Papers 39 (1):69-96.
Noriaki Iwasa (2010). The Impossibility of Political Neutrality. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (29):147-155.
Matt Sensat Waldren (2013). Why Liberal Neutralists Should Accept Educational Neutrality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):71-83.
Zachary Hoskins (2011). ''Fair Play, Political Obligation, and Punishment''. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):53-71.
Corey Brettschneider (2007). The Rights of the Guilty. Political Theory 35 (2):175-199.
Mohamad Al-Hakim (2010). Making Room for Hate Crime Legislation in Liberal Societies. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (3):341-358.
Robert Westmoreland (2011). Realizing 'Political' Neutrality. Law and Philosophy 30 (5):541-573.
Kevin Magill (1998). The Idea of a Justification for Punishment. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (1):86-101.
Elizabeth Brake (2004). Rawls and Feminism: What Should Feminists Make of Liberal Neutrality? Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):293-309.
Philippe Mongin (2006). Value Judgements and Value Neutrality in Economics. Economica 73 (290):257-286.
Wojciech Sadurski (1988). Theory of Punishment, Social Justice, and Liberal Neutrality. Law and Philosophy 7 (3):351 - 373.
Added to index2012-08-15
Total downloads19 ( #98,815 of 1,413,402 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #67,314 of 1,413,402 )
How can I increase my downloads?