David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (3):240-266 (2011)
Abstract I argue for the following, which I dub the ?fallibility syllogism?: (1) All systems of criminal punishment that inflict suffering on the innocent are unjust from a desert-based, retributivist point of view. (2) All past or present human systems of criminal punishment inflict suffering on the innocent. (3) Therefore, all such human systems of criminal punishment are unjust from a desert-based, retributivist point of view. My argument for the first premise is organized in the following way. I define what a human system of punishment is. I offer a distinction between retributive and utilitarian approaches to punishment. I distinguish between weak retributivism embodied in the second premise and strong retributivism, which I argue is the basis for the weak version. I argue that on retributivist grounds, each case of punishment is just when it matches the seriousness of the wrongdoing of the offender and that systems of punishment are just from a retributivist point of view when there are no exceptions to this match-up. In making my case, I will use Kant's retributivism as the version of my choice, so I will spend some time showing that recent reinterpretations of Kant (arguing that he was not a thoroughgoing retributivist), even if they are correct, are consistent with my view. Ultimately, however, I argue that the better view is that Kant was a thoroughgoing retributivist.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. Angelo Corlett (2001). Making Sense of Retributivism. Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Jane Johnson (2008). Revisiting Kantian Retributivism to Construct a Justification of Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):291-307.
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.
Jami L. Anderson (1999). A Hegelian Theory of Punishment. Legal Theory 5 (4):363-388.
Jami L. Anderson (1999). Annulment Retributivism: A Hegelian Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press 5 (4):363-388.
Thom Brooks (2005). Kantian Punishment and Retributivism: A Reply to Clark. Ratio 18 (2):237–245.
Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (2):206.
Mitchell N. Berman (2013). Rehabilitating Retributivism. Law and Philosophy 32 (1):83-108.
Göran Duus-Otterström (2010). Fallibility and Retribution. Law and Philosophy 29 (3):337-369.
Jami L. Anderson (1997). Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism. Criminal Justice Ethics 16 (1):13-25.
Nathan Hanna (2014). Retributivism Revisited. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
Merle J.-C. (2000). A Kantian Critique of Kant's Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (3):311-338.
J. Angelo Corlett (2003). Making More Sense of Retributivism: Desert as Responsibility and Proportionality. Philosophy 78 (2):279-287.
Thom Brooks (2004). Retributivist Arguments Against Capital Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2):188–197.
Added to index2011-12-04
Total downloads30 ( #143,358 of 1,937,449 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #216,654 of 1,937,449 )
How can I increase my downloads?