Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469 (2010)
|Abstract||Punishment involves deliberating harming individuals. How, then, if at all, is it to be justified? This, the first of three papers on the philosophy of punishment (see also 'Punishment: Nonconsequentialism' and 'Punishment: The Future'), examines attempts to justify the practice or institution according to its consequences. One claim is that punishment reduces crime, and hence the resulting harms. Another is that punishment functions to rehabilitate offenders. A third claim is that punishment (or some forms of punishment) can serve to make restitution to victims, and a fourth is that it can strengthen social values. The paper examines these claims, and finally considers pluralist theories which combine retributive and harm-reductive or utilitarian considerations. (Retributive theories are examined in their own right in 'Punishment: Nonconsequentialism'.).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Alan Wertheimer (1977). Punishing the Innocent — Unintentionally. Inquiry 20 (1-4):45 – 65.
J. Angelo Corlett (2001). Making Sense of Retributivism. Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Greg Roebuck & David Wood (2011). A Retributive Argument Against Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
Ido Weijers (2000). Punishment and Upbringing: Considerations for an Educative Justification of Punishment. Journal of Moral Education 29 (1):61-73.
Whitley Kaufman (2008). The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.
Michael Cholbi (2010). Compulsory Victim Restitution is Punishment: A Reply to Boonin. Public Reason 2 (1):85-93.
Adam Kolber (2012). Unintentional Punishment. Legal Theory 18 (1):1-29.
David Wood (2010). Punishment: The Future. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):483-491.
Added to index2010-06-03
Total downloads98 ( #8,137 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,437 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?