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

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  12
    Mark Tunick (2016). Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment? Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (3):611-628.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  66
    Mark Tunick (2016). Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment? Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (3):611-628.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  21
    Thom Brooks (2016). In Defence of Punishment and the Unified Theory of Punishment: A Reply. Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (3):629-638.
    My book, Punishment, has three aims: to provide the most comprehensive and updated examination of the philosophy of punishment available, to advance a new theory—the unified theory of punishment—as a compelling alternative to available theories and to consider the relation of theory to practice. In his recent review article, Mark Tunick raises several concerns with my analysis. I address each of these concerns and argue they rest largely on misinterpretations which I restate and clarify (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  22
    Phillip Montague (2009). Revisiting the Censure Theory of Punishment. Philosophia 37 (1):125-131.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  11
    Mark Tunick (1992). Punishment: Theory and Practice. University of California.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6.  60
    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.
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  7. Walter Block (2009). Libertarian Punishment Theory: Working for, and Donating to, the State. Libertarian Papers 1.
    In this paper we assume the contours of the libertarian philosophy, its view toward the unjustified state, and, also, the punishment theory of this perspective. We address the narrow question of what punishment is justified for partaking in statist activities.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Matt Matravers (1999). Punishment and Political Theory.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  73
    Christopher Bennett (2008). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press.
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  10.  26
    Jami L. Anderson (1999). A Hegelian Theory of Punishment. Legal Theory 5 (4):363-388.
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Mark R. Reiff (2005). Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability. Cambridge University Press.
    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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  12.  28
    Thaddeus Metz (2000). Censure Theory and Intuitions About Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (4):491-512.
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  13. Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (2):206.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14.  10
    Alfred C. Ewing (2012). The Morality of Punishment : With Some Suggestions for a General Theory of Ethics. Routledge.
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  69
    Jean-Christophe Merle (2000). A Kantian Critique of Kant's Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (3):311 - 338.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16.  27
    Jami L. Anderson (1999). Annulment Retributivism: A Hegelian Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press 5 (4):363-388.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17.  38
    Thaddeus Metz (2009). Censure Theory Still Best Accounts for Punishment of the Guilty: Reply to Montague. Philosophia 37 (1):113-23.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  51
    Wesley Cragg (1992). The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. Routledge.
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  19.  10
    Vincent Chiao (forthcoming). Mass Incarceration and the Theory of Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-22.
    An influential strain in the literature on state punishment analyzes the permissibility of punishment in exclusively deontological terms, whether in terms of an individual’s rights, the state’s obligation to vindicate the law, or both. I argue that we should reject a deontological theory of punishment because it cannot explain what is unjust about mass incarceration, although mass incarceration is widely considered—including by proponents of deontological theories—to be unjust. The failure of deontological theories suggests a minimum criterion (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Jacob Adler (1994). [Book Review] the Urgings of Conscience, a Theory of Punishment. [REVIEW] Ethics 104 (1):181-182.
    Most people who write about punishment ask, Why may we punish the guilty? I want to ask, Why should the guilty put up with it? or, more specifically, To what extent does a person guilty of an offense have a duty to submit to punishment? ;This question forms the topic of the thesis. The work is divided into two parts, of three chapters each. In Part 1, I argue for the importance of the question. In Part 2, I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  21.  15
    François Tanguay-Renaud (2013). Victor's Justice: The Next Best Moral Theory of Criminal Punishment? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 32 (1):129-157.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  7
    Leo Zaibert (2012). Beyond Bad: Punishment Theory Meets the Problem of Evil1. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 36 (1):93-111.
  23.  2
    Michael Davis (2009). Punishment Theory’s Golden Half Century: A Survey of Developments From 1957 to 2007. Journal of Ethics 13 (1):73-100.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  24.  1
    Michael Davis (1990). Recent Work in Punishment Theory. Public Affairs Quarterly 4 (3):217-232.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  25.  16
    Michael Davis (1988). The Relative Independence of Punishment Theory. Law and Philosophy 7 (3):321 - 350.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26.  19
    Michael Davis (1996). Method in Punishment Theory. Law and Philosophy 15 (4):309 - 338.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  6
    David Dolinko (1993). Book Review:Punishment: Theory and Practice. Mark Tunick. [REVIEW] Ethics 104 (1):182-.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Anthony Ellis (2003). A Deterrence Theory of Punishment. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):337–351.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  29. 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.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  30. 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.
    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
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31.  76
    Philip Pettit (1997). Republican Theory and Criminal Punishment. Utilitas 9 (1):59.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  32. Hugo Adam Bedau (1978). Retribution and the Theory of Punishment. Journal of Philosophy 75 (11):601-620.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  33. Stephen Kershnar (2010). The Forfeiture Theory of Punishment: Surviving Boonin’s Objections. Public Affairs Quarterly 24 (4):319-334.
    In this paper, I set out a version of the Forfeiture Theory of Punishment. Forfeiture Theory: Legal punishment is just or permissible because offenders forfeit their rights.On this account, offenders forfeit their rights because they infringed on someone’s rights. My strategy is to provide a version of the Forfeiture Theory and then to argue that it survives a number of initially intuitive seeming objections, most having their origins in the recent work of David Boonin.A. Victim-Specific (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  83
    Alan H. Goldman (1982). Toward a New Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 1 (1):57 - 76.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35. Merle J.-C. (2000). A Kantian Critique of Kant's Theory of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (3):311-338.
    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 (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  41
    J. Angelo Corlett (1993). Foundations of a Kantian Theory of Punishment. Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (3):263-283.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  42
    Whitley Kaufman (2008). The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. T. Brooks (2003). T.H. Green's Theory of Punishment. History of Political Thought 24 (4):685-702.
    Green agrees with Kant on the abstract character of moral law as categorical imperatives and that intentional dispositions are central to a moral justification of punishment. The central problem with Kant's account is that we are unable to know these dispositions beyond a reasonable estimate. Green offers a practical alternative, positing moral law as an ideal to be achieved, but not immediately enforceable through positive law. Moral and positive law are bridged by Green's theory of the common good (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  26
    Richard Stalley (2012). Adam Smith and the Theory of Punishment. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 10 (1):69-89.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  5
    Joel Kidder (1982). A Sketch of an Integrative Theory of Punishment. American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (2):197 - 202.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  2
    W. A. Miller (1970). A Theory of Punishment. Philosophy 45 (174):307 - 316.
    T he O bject of this paper is the development of a view of punishment which incorporates what is of importance in retributive and utilitarian justifications of the practice of punishment. This proposed theory was noted and referred to as the plene esse , but not fully worked out, in the course of a discussion paper in which my concern was to offer an alternative view, to that of Mr Anthony Quinton, by construing ‘the right to (...)’ as meaning that ‘the offender has the right to be regarded as responsible for his actions’. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Christopher Bennett (2008). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press.
    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 that she is subject to retributive attitudes when she violates the demands of that relationship. However, while he claims that punishment and the retributive attitudes (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Christopher Bennett (2008). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press.
    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 that she is subject to retributive attitudes when she violates the demands of that relationship. However, while he claims that punishment and the retributive attitudes (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Wesley Cragg (2003). The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. Routledge.
    This study focuses on the practice of punishment, as it is inflicted by the state. The author's first-hand experience with penal reform, combined with philosophical reflection, has led him to develop a theory of punishment that identifies the principles of sentencing and corrections on which modern correctional systems should be built. This new theory of punishment is built on the view that the central function of the law is to reduce the need to use force (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Wesley Cragg (2016). The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. Routledge.
    This study focuses on the practice of punishment, as it is inflicted by the state. The author's first-hand experience with penal reform, combined with philosophical reflection, has led him to develop a theory of punishment that identifies the principles of sentencing and corrections on which modern correctional systems should be built. This new theory of punishment is built on the view that the central function of the law is to reduce the need to use force (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Alfred C. Ewing (2012). The Morality of Punishment : With Some Suggestions for a General Theory of Ethics. Routledge.
    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
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Mark R. Reiff (2011). Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability. Cambridge University Press.
    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 (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  26
    Alan Brudner (2009). Punishment and Freedom: A Liberal Theory of Penal Justice. Oxford University Press.
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  49.  96
    Uwe Steinhoff, Shortcomings of and Alternatives to the Rights-Forfeiture Theory of Justified Self-Defense and Punishment.
    I argue that rights-forfeiture by itself is no path to permissibility at all (even barring special circumstances), neither in the case of self-defense nor in the case of punishment. The limiting conditions of self-defense, for instance – necessity, proportionality (or no gross disproportionality), and the subjective element – are different in the context of forfeiture than in the context of justification (and might even be absent in the former context). In particular, I argue that a culpable aggressor, unlike an (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Michael Davis (1992). To Make the Punishment Fit the Crime Essays in the Theory of Criminal Justice. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000