Search results for 'punishment theory' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Phillip Montague (2009). Revisiting the Censure Theory of Punishment. Philosophia 37 (1):125-131.score: 144.0
    This paper is a rejoinder to Thaddeus Metz’s article “Censure Theory Still Best Accounts for Punishment of the Guilty: Reply to Montague.” In his article, Metz attempts to answer objections to censure theory that I had raised previously. I argue in my rejoinder that Metz’s defense of censure theory remains seriously problematic despite what he says in his reply.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Mark Tunick (forthcoming). Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment? Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-18.score: 144.0
    Thom Brooks criticizes utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment but argues that utilitarian and retributive goals can be incorporated into a coherent and unified theory of punitive restoration, according to which punishment is a means of reintegrating criminals into society and restoring rights. I point to some difficulties with Brooks’ criticisms of retributive and utilitarian theories, and argue that his theory of punitive restoration is not unified or coherent. I argue further that a theory attempting (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Mark Tunick (1992). Punishment: Theory and Practice. University of California.score: 126.0
    Unlike other treatments of legal punishment, this book takes both an external approach, asking why we punish at all, and an internal approach, considering issues faced by those 'inside' the practice: For what actions should we punish? Should we allow plea-bargaining? the insanity defense? How should sentencing be determined? The two approaches are connected: To decide whether to punish someone who is 'insane', or who cops a plea, we need to ask whether doing so is consistent with our (...) of why we punish at all. In connecting theory and practice, I draw on a broad range of thought: radical criticisms of punishment (Nietzsche, Foucault, Marxists), sociological theories (Durkheim, Girard), various philosophical traditions (utilitarian, German Idealism, modern liberalism), and the 'law and economics' movement. Against radical critics who argue we shouldn't punish at all, but who then leave us without an alternative for dealing with crime, I defend the practice, offering a version of retribution (which I distinguish from revenge and non-consequential theories) that holds we punish not to deter, reform, or otherwise augment social utility, but to mete out just deserts, vindicate right, and express society's condemnation of actions it deems blameworthy. I argue that this theory best accounts for how we do punish, and then use this theory to provide immanent criticism of certain features of our actual practice that don't accord with the retributive principle. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Michael Davis (2009). Punishment Theory's Golden Half Century: A Survey of Developments From (About) 1957 to 2007. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 13 (1):73 - 100.score: 120.0
    This paper describes developments in punishment theory since the middle of the twentieth century. After the mid–1960s, what Stanley I. Benn called “preventive theories of punishment”—whether strictly utilitarian or more loosely consequentialist like his—entered a long and steep decline, beginning with the virtual disappearance of reform theory in the 1970s. Crowding out preventive theories were various alternatives generally (but, as I shall argue, misleadingly) categorized as “retributive”. These alternatives include both old theories (such as the education (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Jami L. Anderson (1999). A Hegelian Theory of Punishment. Legal Theory 5 (4):363-388.score: 114.0
    Despite the bad press that retributivism often receives, the basic assumptions on which this theory of punishment rests are generally regarded as being attractive and compelling. First of these is the assumption that persons are morally responsible agents and that social practices, such as criminal punishment, must acknowledge that fact. Additionally, retributivism is committed to the claim that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and not determined by such utilitarian concerns as the welfare of society, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (02):206-.score: 108.0
    The most widespread interpretation amongst contemporary theorists of Kant's theory of punishment is that it is retributivist. On the contrary, I will argue there are very different senses in which Kant discusses punishment. He endorses retribution for moral law transgressions and consequentialist considerations for positive law violations. When these standpoints are taken into consideration, Kant's theory of punishment is more coherent and unified than previously thought. This reading uncovers a new problem in Kant's theory (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Christopher Bennett (2008). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press.score: 108.0
    Christopher Bennett presents a theory of punishment grounded in the practice of apology, and in particular in reactions such as feeling sorry and making amends. He argues that offenders have a 'right to be punished' - that it is part of taking an offender seriously as a member of a normatively demanding relationship (such as friendship or collegiality or citizenship) that she is subject to retributive attitudes when she violates the demands of that relationship. However, while he claims (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Wesley Cragg (1992). The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. Routledge.score: 108.0
    In the latter half of the twentieth century, there has been a sharp decline in confidence in sentencing principles, due to a questioning of the efficacy of punishment. It has been very difficult to develop consistent, fair, and humane criteria for evaluating legislative, judicial and correctional advancements. The Practice of Punishment offers a comprehensive study of punishment that identifies the principles of sentencing and corrections on which modern correctional systems should be built. The theory of (...) that emerges is built on the view that the central function of the law is to reduce the need to use force in the resolutions of disputes. In this text, Wesley Cragg argues that the proper role of sentencing and sentence administration, as well as policing and adjudication, is to sustain public confidence in the capacity of the law to fulfill that function. Cragg believes that sentencing and corrections should be guided by principles of restorative justice, and he contends that inflicting punishment is in itself not a legitimate objective of criminal law. The Practice of Punishment is a philosophical account of punishment, sentencing, and correction which draws strongly on first-hand experience of penal practices, diverse recent studies, government reports, position papers, crime surveys, and victim concerns. It will be of special interest to applied ethicists, those concerned with the theory and practice of punishment and policing, and criminal justice scholars and lawyers. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Bill Wringe (2010). War Crimes and Expressive Theories of Punishment: Communication or Denunciation? Res Publica 16 (2):119-133.score: 108.0
    In a paper published in 2006, I argued that the best way of defending something like our current practices of punishing war criminals would be to base the justification of this practice on an expressive theory of punishment. I considered two forms that such a justification could take—a ‘denunciatory’ account, on which the purpose of punishment is supposed to communicate a commitment to certain kinds of standard to individuals other than the criminal and a ‘communicative’ account, on (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Thaddeus Metz (2009). Censure Theory Still Best Accounts for Punishment of the Guilty: Reply to Montague. Philosophia 37 (1):113-23.score: 108.0
    In an article previously published in this journal, Phillip Montague critically surveys and rejects a handful of contemporary attempts to explain why state punishment is morally justified. Among those targeted is one of my defences of the censure theory of punishment, according to which state punishment is justified because the political community has a duty to express disapproval of those guilty of injustice. My defence of censure theory supposes, per argumentum, that there is always some (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Thaddeus Metz (2000). Censure Theory and Intuitions About Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (4):491-512.score: 108.0
    Many philosophers and laypeople have the following two intuitions about legal punishment: the state has a pro tanto moral reason to punish all those guilty of breaking a just law and to do so in proportion to their guilt. Accepting that there can be overriding considerations not to punish all the guilty in proportion to their guilt, many philosophers still consider it a strike against any theory if it does not imply that there is always a supportive moral (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. François Tanguay-Renaud (2013). Victor's Justice: The Next Best Moral Theory of Criminal Punishment? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 32 (1):129-157.score: 108.0
    In this essay, I address one methodological aspect of Victor Tadros's The Ends of Harm-­-­namely, the moral character of the theory of criminal punishment it defends. First, I offer a brief reconstruction of this dimension of the argument, highlighting some of its distinctive strengths while drawing attention to particular inconsistencies. I then argue that Tadros ought to refrain from developing this approach in terms of an overly narrow understanding of the morality of harming as fully unified and reconciled (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Mark R. Reiff (2005). Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability. Cambridge University Press.score: 108.0
    This book is the first comprehensive study of the meaning and measure of enforceability. While we have long debated what restraints should govern the conduct of our social life, we have paid relatively little attention to the question of what it means to make a restraint enforceable. Focusing on the enforceability of legal rights but also addressing the enforceability of moral rights and social conventions, Mark Reiff explains how we use punishment and compensation to make restraints operative in the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Jami L. Anderson (1999). Annulment Retributivism: A Hegelian Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press 5 (4):363-388.score: 108.0
    Despite the bad press that retributivism often receives, the basic assumptions on which this theory of punishment rests are generally regarded as being attractive and compelling. First of these is the assumption that persons are morally responsible agents and that social practices, such as criminal punishment, must acknowledge that fact. Additionally, retributivism is committed to the claim that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and not determined by such utilitarian concerns as the welfare of society, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. B. Sharon Byrd (1989). Kant's Theory of Punishment: Deterrence in its Threat, Retribution in its Execution. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 8 (2):151 - 200.score: 96.0
    Kant's theory of punishment is commonly regarded as purely retributive in nature, and indeed much of his discourse seems to support that interpretation. Still, it leaves one with certain misgivings regarding the internal consistency of his position. Perhaps the problem lies not in Kant's inconsistency nor in the senility sometimes claimed to be apparent in the Metaphysic of Morals, but rather in a superimposed, modern yet monistic view of punishment. Historical considerations tend to show that Kant was (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Hugo Adam Bedau (1978). Retribution and the Theory of Punishment. Journal of Philosophy 75 (11):601-620.score: 96.0
    This paper examines hart's model (1967) of the retributive theory. section i criticizes the model for not answering all the main questions to which a theory of punishment should be addressed, as hart alleges it does. section ii criticizes the model for its omission of the concept of desert. section iii criticizes attempts by card (1973) and by von hirsch (1976) to provide new ways of proportioning punitive severity to criminal injury. section iv discusses the idea of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Anthony Ellis (2003). A Deterrence Theory of Punishment. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):337–351.score: 96.0
    I start from the presupposition that the use of force against another is justified only in self-defence or in defence of others against aggression. If so, the main work of justifying punishment must rely on its deterrent effect, since most punishments have no other significant self-defensive effect. It has often been objected to the deterrent justification of punishment that it commits us to using offenders unacceptably, and that it is unable to deliver acceptable limits on punishment. I (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Alan H. Goldman (1982). Toward a New Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 1 (1):57 - 76.score: 96.0
    Criteria for a successful theory of punishment include first, that it specify a reasonable limit to punishments in particular cases, and second, that it allow benefits to outweigh costs in a penal institution.It is argued that traditional utilitarian and retributive theories fail to satisfy both criteria, and that they cannot be coherently combined so as to do so. Retributivism specifies a reasonable limit in its demand that punishment equal crime, but this limit fails to allow benefits to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Merle J.-C. (2000). A Kantian Critique of Kant's Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (3):311-338.score: 96.0
    In contrast to the traditional view of Kant as a pure retributivist, the recent interpretations of Kant's theory of punishment (for instance Byrd's) propose a mixed theory of retributivism and general prevention. Although both elements are literally right, I try to show the shortcomings of each. I then argue that Kant's theory of punishment is not consistent with his own concept of law. Thus I propose another justification for punishment: special deterrence and rehabilitation. Kant's (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Jean-Christophe Merle (2000). A Kantian Critique of Kant's Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (3):311 - 338.score: 96.0
    In contrast to the traditional view of Kant as apure retributivist, the recent interpretations ofKant's theory of punishment (for instance Byrd's)propose a mixed theory of retributivism and generalprevention. Although both elements are literallyright, I try to show the shortcomings of each. I thenargue that Kant's theory of punishment is notconsistent with his own concept of law. Thus I proposeanother justification for punishment: specialdeterrence and rehabilitation. Kant's critique ofutilitarianism does not affect this alternative, whichmoreover has (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Philip Pettit (1997). Republican Theory and Criminal Punishment. Utilitas 9 (01):59-.score: 96.0
    Suppose we embrace the republican ideal of freedom as non-domination: freedom as immunity to arbitrary interference. In that case those acts that call uncontroversially for criminalization will usually be objectionable on three grounds: the offender assumes a dominating position in relation to the victim, the offender reduces the range or ease of undominated choice on the part of the victim, and the offender raises a spectre of domination for others like the victim. And in that case, so it appears, the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Whitley Kaufman (2008). The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.score: 96.0
    In the middle of the twentieth century, many philosophers came to believe that the problem of morally justifying punishment had finally been solved. Defended most famously by Hart and Rawls, the so-called “Mixed Theory” of punishment claimed that justifying punishment required recognizing that the utilitarian and retributive theories were in fact answers to two different questions: utilitarianism answered the question of why we have punishment as an institution, while retribution answered the question of how to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Thaddeus Metz (2002). Realism and the Censure Theory of Punishment. In Patricia Smith & Paolo Comanducci (eds.), Legal Philosophy: General Aspects. Franz Steiner Verlag. 117-29.score: 96.0
    I focus on the metaphysical underpinnings of the censure theory of punishment, according to which punishment is justified if and because it expresses disapproval of injustice. Specifically, I seek to answer the question of what makes claims about proportionate censure true or false. In virtue of what is it the case that one form of censure is stronger than another, or that punishment is the censure fitting injustice? Are these propositions true merely because of social conventions, (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Richard Stalley (2012). Adam Smith and the Theory of Punishment. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (1):69-89.score: 96.0
    A distinctive theory of punishment plays a central role in Smith's moral and legal theory. According to this theory, we regard the punishment of a crime as deserved only to the extent that an impartial spectator would go along with the actual or supposed resentment of the victim. The first part of this paper argues that Smith's theory deserves serious consideration and relates it to other theories such as utilitarianism and more orthodox forms of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. J. Angelo Corlett (1993). Foundations of a Kantian Theory of Punishment. Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (3):263-283.score: 96.0
    It has recently been argued that there is probably no theory of punishment to be found in Immanuel Kant’s writings, but that “if one selects carefully among the many remarks and insights that Kant has left us about crime and punishment, one might even be able to build such an edifice from the bricks provided.” In this paper, I seek to provide part of a foundation of a Kantian theory of punishment, one which is consistent (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Joel Kidder (1982). A Sketch of an Integrative Theory of Punishment. American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (2):197 - 202.score: 96.0
    The thesis of this short article is that the various "theories" of punishment correlate to a series of mental states attributed to the recipients of punishment by those who punish them. The dimension of the series is the degree of awareness of the wrong-Doer of various salient features of his act. The series is developmental in an ideal sense. Some reflections are offered about why the incapacitative theory underlies the whole series, And why the retributive theory (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Alfred C. Ewing (2014). The Morality of Punishment (Routledge Revivals): With Some Suggestions for a General Theory of Ethics. Routledge.score: 96.0
    First published in 1929, this book explores the crucial, ethical question of the objects and the justification of punishment. Dr. A. C. Ewing considers both the retributive theory and the deterrent theory on the subject whilst remaining commendably unprejudiced. The book examines the views which emphasize the reformation of the offender and the education of the community as objects of punishment. It also deals with a theory of reward as a compliment to a theory (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Nathan Hanna (2009). Liberalism and the General Justifiability of Punishment. Philosophical Studies 145 (3):325-349.score: 90.0
    I argue that contemporary liberal theory cannot give a general justification for the institution or practice of punishment, i.e., a justification that would hold across a broad range of reasonably realistic conditions. I examine the general justifications offered by three prominent contemporary liberal theorists and show how their justifications fail in light of the possibility of an alternative to punishment. I argue that, because of their common commitments regarding the nature of justification, these theorists have decisive reasons (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Alan Brudner (2009). Punishment and Freedom: A Liberal Theory of Penal Justice. Oxford University Press.score: 90.0
    Punishment -- Culpable mind -- Culpable action -- Responsibility for harm -- Liability for public welfare offences -- Justification -- Excuse -- Detention after acquittal -- The unity of the penal law.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Michael Davis (2010). What Punishment for the Murder of 10,000? Res Publica 16 (2):101-118.score: 90.0
    Those who commit crime on a grand scale, numbering their victims in the thousands, seem to pose a special problem both for consequentialist and for non-consequentialist theories of punishment, a problem the International Criminal Court makes practical. This paper argues that at least one non-consequentialist theory of punishment, the fairness theory, can provide a justification of punishment for great crimes. It does so by dividing the question into two parts, the one of proportion which it (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Antony Duff (2008). The Incompleteness of 'Punishment as Fair Play': A Response to Dagger. Res Publica 14 (4):277-281.score: 90.0
    Richard Dagger (in this issue) provides perhaps the most persuasive version of a ‘fair play’ theory of criminal punishment, grounded in an attractive liberal republican political theory. But, I argue, his version of the theory still faces serious objections: that its explanation of why some central mala in se are properly criminalised is still distorting, despite his appeal to the burdens of ‘general compliance’; and that it cannot adequately explain (as it should explain) the differential seriousness (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Russell L. Christopher (2009). A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (3):261-269.score: 90.0
    This essay was originally presented at the Rutgers Institute for Law and Philosophy as part of the Symposium on The Evolution of Criminal Law Theory. It is a Reply to Professor Donald Dripps’ politically-based justification for blackmail’s prohibition. Under Dripps’ account, by exacting payment from the victim blackmail is an impermissible form of private punishment that usurps the state’s public monopoly on law enforcement. This essay demonstrates that Dripps’ account is either under-inclusive or over-inclusive or both. Dripps’ account (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Michael Davis (1996). Method in Punishment Theory. Law and Philosophy 15 (4):309 - 338.score: 90.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Michael Davis (1988). The Relative Independence of Punishment Theory. Law and Philosophy 7 (3):321 - 350.score: 90.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. David Dolinko (1993). Book Review:Punishment: Theory and Practice. Mark Tunick. [REVIEW] Ethics 104 (1):182-.score: 90.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Leo Zaibert (2012). Beyond Bad: Punishment Theory Meets the Problem of Evil1. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 36 (1):93-111.score: 90.0
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Michael Davis (1990). Recent Work in Punishment Theory. Public Affairs Quarterly 4 (3):217-232.score: 90.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Zachary Hoskins (2011). ''Deterrent Punishment and Respect for Persons''. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 8 (2):369-384.score: 84.0
    This article defends deterrence as an aim of punishment. Specifically, I contend that a system of punishment aimed at deterrence (with constraints to prohibit punishing the innocent or excessively punishing the guilty) is consistent with the liberal principle of respect for offenders as autonomous moral persons. I consider three versions of the objection that deterrent punishment fails to respect offenders. The first version, raised by Jeffrie Murphy and others, charges that deterrent punishment uses offenders as mere (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Brent G. Kyle (2013). Punishing and Atoning: A New Critique of Penal Substitution. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (2):201-218.score: 78.0
    The doctrine of penal substitution claims that it was good (or required) for God to punish in response to human sin, and that Christ received this punishment in our stead. I argue that this doctrine’s central factual claim—that Christ was punished by God—is mistaken. In order to punish someone, one must at least believe the recipient is responsible for an offense. But God surely did not believe the innocent Christ was responsible for an offense, let alone the offense of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. David J. Crossley (1976). Bradley's Utilitarian Theory of Punishment. Ethics 86 (3):200-213.score: 78.0
    Although f h bradley is usually taken to be a retributivist, His writings on the topic of punishment show his position to be more utilitarian. And he criticizes retributivism severely in his article in the "international journal of ethics" in 1894. The present paper attempts to present a more accurate picture of bradley's views of punishment and to show the relevance of these views to contemporary debate on the justification and distribution of punishment.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Thom Brooks (2010). Punishment. Oxford Bibliographies Online.score: 78.0
    The punishment of criminals is a topic of long-standing philosophical interest since the ancient Greeks. This interest has focused on several considerations, including the justification of punishment, who should be permitted to punish, and how we might best set punishments for crimes. This entry focuses on the most important contributions in this field. The focus will be on specific theoretical approaches to punishment including both traditional theories of punishment (retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation) and more contemporary alternatives (expressivism, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Kai Ambos (2013). Punishment Without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law: A First Contribution Towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33 (2):293-315.score: 78.0
    Current International Criminal Law (ICL) suffers from at least four fairly serious theoretical shortcomings. First, as a starting point, the concept and meaning of ICL in its different variations must be clarified (‘the concept and meaning issue’). Second, the question of whether and how punitive power can exist at the supranational level without a sovereign (‘the ius puniendi issue’) must be answered in a satisfactory manner. Third, the overall function or purpose of ICL as opposed to national criminal law (‘the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Retribution, Forgiveness, and the Character Creation Theory of Punishment. Social Theory and Practice 33 (1):75-103.score: 78.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Stephen Kershnar (1997). George Sher's Theory of Deserved Punishment, and the Victimized Wrongdoer. Social Theory and Practice 23 (1):75-91.score: 78.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Attila Ataner (2006). Kant on Capital Punishment and Suicide. Kant-Studien 97 (4):452-482.score: 72.0
    From a juridical standpoint, Kant ardently upholds the state's right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the law of retribution. At the same time, from an ethical standpoint, Kant maintains a strict proscription against suicide. The author proposes that this latter position is inconsistent with and undercuts the former. However, Kant's division between external (juridical) and internal (moral) lawgiving is an obstacle to any argument against Kant's endorsement of capital punishment based on his own disapprobation of suicide. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Jean Hampton (1984). The Moral Education Theory of Punishment. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (3):208-238.score: 72.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Thomas D. Senor (2005). Dissatisfaction Theory and Punishment: A Reply to Webb. Southwest Philosophy Review 21 (2):187-190.score: 72.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Christopher Heath Wellman (2012). The Rights Forfeiture Theory of Punishment. Ethics 122 (2):371-393.score: 72.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Chandra Sekhar Sripada (2005). Punishment and the Strategic Structure of Moral Systems. Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):767–789.score: 72.0
    The problem of moral compliance is the problem of explaining how moral norms are sustained over extented stretches of time despite the existence of selfish evolutionary incentives that favor their violation. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of solutions that have been offered to the problem of moral compliance, the reciprocity-based account and the punishment-based account. In this paper, I argue that though the reciprocity-based account has been widely endorsed by evolutionary theorists, the account is in fact deeply implausible. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000