David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86 (2011)
This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to be an argument only against retributive justifications of punishment, and so leave open the possibility of a sound non-retributive justification of punishment. Punishment cannot be justified, the paper argues, because it cannot be demonstrated that any punishment, no matter how minimal, is not a disproportionate retributive response to criminal wrongdoing. If we are to hold onto proportionality—that is, proportionality as setting a limit to morally permissible punishment—then punishment is morally impermissible. The argument is a retributive argument against punishment insofar as a just retributive response to wrongdoing must be proportionate to the wrongdoing. The argument, that is, is concerned with proportionality as a retributive requirement. The argument against punishment is set out on the basis of a familiar version of the ‘anchoring problem’, according to which it is the problem of determining the most severe punishment to anchor or ground the punishment scale. To meet the possible criticism that we have chosen a version of the anchoring problem particularly favourable to our argument, various alternative statements of the anchoring problem are considered. Considering such statements also provides a more rounded view of the anchoring problem. One such alternative holds that the punishment scale must be anchored not just in the most severe punishment, but in the least severe punishment as well. Other alternatives hold that it is necessary and sufficient to anchor the punishment scale in any two punishments, neither of which needs to be the most or least severe punishment. A further suggestion is that one anchoring point anywhere along the punishment scale is sufficient, because it is possible to ‘project’ from such a point, so as to determine the correlative punishments for all other crimes, and so derive a complete punishment scale. Finally, the suggestion is considered that one can approach the issue of a punishment scale ‘holistically’, denying any distinction between anchoring and derived (or ‘projected’) punishments
|Keywords||Punishment Retributivism Proportionality Ordinal Cardinal Commensurability|
|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
Nicole A. Vincent (2010). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
Joel Feinberg (1965). The Expressive Function of Punishment. The Monist 49 (3):397-423.
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
Peter Singer (1974). Sidgwick and Reflective Equilibrium. The Monist 58 (3):490-517.
Morris J. Fish (2008). An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (1):57-71.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark Tunick (forthcoming). Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment? Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-18.
Stephen P. Garvey (2013). Was Ellen Wronged? Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (2):185-216.
Patrick Tomlin (2014). Could the Presumption of Innocence Protect the Guilty? Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (2):431-447.
Similar books and articles
David Wood (2010). Punishment: Consequentialism. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
J. Angelo Corlett (2001). Making Sense of Retributivism. Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Nathan Hanna (2014). Retributivism Revisited. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
Thom Brooks (2005). Kantian Punishment and Retributivism: A Reply to Clark. Ratio 18 (2):237–245.
Michael Cholbi (2010). Compulsory Victim Restitution is Punishment: A Reply to Boonin. Public Reason 2 (1):85-93.
Jules Holroyd (2010). The Retributive Emotions: Passions and Pains of Punishment. Philosophical Papers 39 (3):343-371.
Whitley Kaufman (2008). The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.
David Wood (2010). Punishment: The Future. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):483-491.
Richard L. Lippke (2009). Retributive Parsimony. Res Publica 15 (4):377-395.
Steven Sverdlik (1988). Punishment. Law and Philosophy 7 (2):179 - 201.
Jeremy Bentham (2009). The Rationale of Punishment. Prometheus Books.
Michael Davis (2010). What Punishment for the Murder of 10,000? Res Publica 16 (2):101-118.
Alan Norrie (1984). Thomas Hobbes and the Philosophy of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 3 (2):299 - 320.
George Schedler (2011). Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (3):240-266.
Brian Rosebury (2009). Private Revenge and its Relation to Punishment. Utilitas 21 (1):1-21.
Added to index2010-11-21
Total downloads44 ( #95,279 of 1,907,232 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #275,486 of 1,907,232 )
How can I increase my downloads?