Search results for 'retribution' (try it on Scholar)

331 found
Sort by:
  1. How Emotivism Survives Immoralists & Natural Retribution (2002). Liliana Albertazzi Phenomenologists and Analytics: A Question of Psychophysics? Ro Bert Allen Identity and Becoming. Southern Journal of Philosophy 40.score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Michael Clark (2006). Retribution and Organic Unities. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (3):351-358.score: 18.0
    Moore argued that his principle of organic unities, according to which the value of a whole is to be distinguished from the value of the sum of its parts, is consistent with a retributivist view of punishment: both crime and punishment are intrinsic evils but the combination of the crime with the punishment of its perpetrator is less bad in itself than the crime unpunished. Moore’s principle excludes any form of retributivism that regards the punishment of a guilty person as (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. M. Sigler (2000). The Story of Justice:Retribution, Mercy, and the Role of Emotions in the Capital Sentencing Process. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 19 (3):339-367.score: 18.0
    This essay examines Martha Nussbaum's prescription for tempering retribution with mercy in the capital sentencing process. Nussbaum observes that the operation of retribution in the ancient world resulted in harsh and indiscriminate punishment without regard to the particularities of the offender and his crime. In the interest of mercy, Nussbaum advocates the use of the novel as a model for a more compassionate sentencing process. An examination of Nussbaum's ``novel prescription'' reveals that the retribution that operates in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Peter Königs (2013). The Expressivist Account of Punishment, Retribution, and the Emotions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1029-1047.score: 18.0
    This paper provides a discussion of the role that emotions may play in the justification of punishment. On the expressivist account of punishment, punishment has the purpose of expressing appropriate emotional reactions to wrongdoing, such as indignation, resentment or guilt. I will argue that this expressivist approach fails as these emotions can be expressed other than through the infliction of punishment. Another argument for hard treatment put forward by expressivists states that punitive sanctions are necessary in order for the law (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Jonathan A. Silk (2007). Good and Evil in Indian Buddhism: The Five Sins of Immediate Retribution. [REVIEW] Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (3):253-286.score: 18.0
    Indian Buddhist sources speak of five sins of immediate retribution: murder of mother, father, an arhat, drawing the blood of a buddha, and creating a schism in the monastic community. This category provides the paradigm for sinfulness in Buddhism. Yet even these sins can and will, be expiated in the long run, demonstrating the overwhelmingly positive nature of Buddhist ethics.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Jeffrie G. Murphy (2006). Legal Moralism and Retribution Revisited. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (1):5-20.score: 16.0
    This is a slightly revised text of Jeffrie G. Murphy’s Presidential Address delivered to the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, in March 2006. In the essay the author reconsiders two positions he had previously defended—the liberal attack on legal moralism and robust versions of the retributive theory of punishment—and now finds these positions much more vulnerable to legitimate attack than he had previously realized. In the first part of the essay, he argues that the use of Mill’s liberal harm principle (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Raffaele Rodogno (2010). Guit, Anger, and Retribution. Legal Theory 16 (1):59-76.score: 16.0
    This article focuses primarily on the emotion of guilt as providing a justification for retributive legal punishment. In particular, I challenge the claim according to which guilt can function as part of our epistemic justification of positive retributivism, that is, the view that wrongdoing is both necessary and sufficient to justify punishment. I show that the argument to this conclusion rests on two premises: (1) to feel guilty typically involves the judgment that one deserves punishment; and (2) those who feel (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Roger Wertheimer (1983). Understanding Retribution. Criminal Justice Ethics 2 (2):19-38.score: 15.0
  9. Margaret R. Holmgren (2012). Forgiveness and Retribution: Responding to Wrongdoing. Cambridge University Press.score: 15.0
    Machine generated contents note: 1. Introduction and overview; 2. The nature of forgiveness and resentment; 3. The moral analysis of the attitudes of forgiveness and resentment defined; 4. The moral analysis of the attitudes of self-forgiveness and self-condemnation; 5. Philosophical underpinnings of the basic attitudes: forgiveness, resentment, and the nature of persons; 6. Moral theory: justice and desert; 7. The public response to wrongdoing; 8. Restorative justice: the public response to wrongdoing and the process of addressing the wrong.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Hugo Adam Bedau (1978). Retribution and the Theory of Punishment. Journal of Philosophy 75 (11):601-620.score: 12.0
    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 retribution in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Oliver D. Crisp (2003). Divine Retribution: A Defence. Sophia 42 (2):35-52.score: 12.0
    The concept of divine justice has been the subject of considerable scrutiny in recent philosophical theology, as it bears upon the notion of punishment with respect to the doctrine of eternal damnation. In this essay, I set out a version of the traditional retributive view of divine punishment and defend it against one of the most important and influential contemporary detractors from this position, Thomas Talbott. I will show that, contrary to Talbott’s argument, punishment may satisfy divine justice, and that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Mark R. Reiff (2008). Terrorism, Retribution, and Collective Responsibility. Social Theory and Practice 34 (2):209-242.score: 12.0
    Terrorism is commonly viewed as a form of war, and as a form of war, the morality of terrorism seems to turn on the usual arguments regarding the furtherance of political objectives through coercive means. The terrorist argues that his options for armed struggle are limited, and that the use of force against civilians is the only way he can advance his cause. But this argument is subject to a powerful response. There is the argument from consequences, which asserts that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Sidney Gendin (1970). A Plausible Theory of Retribution. Journal of Value Inquiry 5 (1):1-16.score: 12.0
    Kant believed all and only the guilty should be punished. Other retributivists believed that only guilt should bring punishment down on a person. In neither way is the retributive theory sufficiently distinguished from utilitarianism for, on contingent grounds, the utilitarian may agree with either of these theses. The advantage of PRJ is that it brings out the difference between retributivism and utilitarianism more sharply while at the same time it manages to be a less stern and unyielding view than traditional (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. J. Allen (2001). Between Retribution and Restoration: Justice and the TRC. South African Journal of Philosophy 20 (2).score: 12.0
    How may a society, in a morally defensible way, confront a past of injustice and suffering, and seek to break the spell of violence and disregard for human life? I begin by demonstrating the relevance of this question to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I draw attention to André du Toit’s longstanding interest in ways in which truth commissions may function to consolidate political change. In the second section of the article, I argue that truth commissions should (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 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: 10.0
    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 discussing not one, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Christopher Ciocchetti (2009). Emotions, Retribution, and Punishment. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):160-173.score: 10.0
    I examine emotional reactions to wrongdoing to determine whether they offer support for retributivism. It is often thought that victims desire to see their victimizer suffer and that this reaction offers support for retributivism. After rejecting several attempts to use different theories of emotion and different approaches to using emotions to justify retributivism, I find that, assuming a cognitive theory of emotion is correct, emotions can be used as heuristic guides much as suggested by Michael Moore. Applying this method to (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Richard M. Buck (2004). Beyond Retribution. Social Philosophy Today 20:67-80.score: 10.0
    The very nature of terrorism and the context in which it typically occurs make responding to it much more complicated, morally speaking, than responding to conventional military attacks. Two points are particularly important here: (1) terrorism often arises in the midst of conflicts that can only be resolved at the negotiating table; (2) responses to terrorist acts almost always present significant risks to the lives and well-being of noncombatants. The history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict suggests that its resolution will only (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Erin I. Kelly (2009). Criminal Justice Without Retribution. Journal of Philosophy 106 (8):440-462.score: 9.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Jeffrie G. Murphy (1973). Marxism and Retribution. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (3):217-243.score: 9.0
  20. Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (02):206-.score: 9.0
    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 of punishment. By assuming a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. John Cottingham (1979). Varieties of Retribution. Philosophical Quarterly 29 (116):238-246.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Michael Byron (2000). Why My Opinion Shouldn't Count: Revenge, Retribution, and the Death Penalty Debate. Journal of Social Philosophy 31 (3):307–315.score: 9.0
    The 1995 film, Dead Man Walking, concerns the life and execution of a convicted murderer in Louisiana. It is based on the experiences of Sister Helen Prejean, a Catholic nun who found herself caught up in the case. The film is not really an anti-death penalty piece: the convict’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, no mistaken identity or extenuating circumstances relieve the prisoner of responsibility. The viewer is told that the convict committed the brutal double rape and murder for which (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Hans Kelsen (1976). Causality and Retribution. Erkenntnis 8 (1):533-556.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Seumas Miller (2009). Retribution, Rehabilitation, and the Rights of Prisoners. Criminal Justice Ethics 28 (2):238-253.score: 9.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Christine James (2012). Prisons for Profit in the United States: Retribution and Means Vs. Ends. Journal for Human Rights 6 (1):76-93.score: 9.0
    The recent trend toward privately owned and operated prisons calls attention to a variety of issues involving human rights. The growing number of corporatized correctional institutions is especially notable in the United States, but it is also a global phenomenon in many countries. The reasons cited for privatizing prisons are usually economic; the opportunity to outsource prison services enables local political leaders to save tax revenue, and local communities are promised a chance to create new jobs and bring in a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Thom Brooks (2001). Corlett on Kant, Hegel, and Retribution. Philosophy 76 (4):561-580.score: 9.0
    The purpose of this essay is to critically appraise J. Angelo Corlett's recent interpretation of Kant's theory of punishment as well as his rejection of Hegel's penology. In taking Kant to be a retributivist at a primary level and a proponent of deterrence at a secondary level, I believe Corlett has inappropriately wed together Kant's distinction between moral and positive law. Moreover, his support of Kant on these grounds is misguided as it is instead Hegel who holds such a distinction. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Göran Duus-Otterström (2010). Fallibility and Retribution. Law and Philosophy 29 (3):337-369.score: 9.0
    The fact that human fallibility virtually ensures that punishment will sometimes befall the innocent presents a theoretical puzzle to all forms of retributivism. Retributivists usually say that desert is a necessary condition for justified punishment. It remains unclear, following this view, how retributivists can support punishment in (imperfect) practice. The paper investigates a number of possible replies available to the retributivist. It concludes that one reply in particular can overcome the problem posed by fallibility, but it is not obvious that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Andrew Oldenquist (1988). An Explanation of Retribution. Journal of Philosophy 85 (9):464-478.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Michael Davis (1986). Harm and Retribution. Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (3):236-266.score: 9.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Richard L. Lippke (2006). Imprisonable Offenses. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (3):265-287.score: 9.0
    Imprisonment imposes very substantial losses and deprivations on people convicted of crimes. The question for which crimes imprisonment is an appropriate sanction is addressed employing both retributive and crime reduction approaches to the justification of legal punishment. Although there is not complete convergence between what the two approaches imply about its use, it is argued that both would reserve imprisonment for serious offenses, ones that inflict or threaten significant harms with moderate to high levels of culpability. Thus, neither approach supports (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Claire Finkelstein (2002). Death and Retribution. Criminal Justice Ethics 21 (2):12-21.score: 9.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. John Finnis (1972). The Restoration of Retribution. Analysis 32 (4):131 - 135.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Maimon Schwarzschild (2002). Retribution, Deterrence, and the Death Penalty: A Response to Hugo Bedau. Criminal Justice Ethics 21 (2):9-11.score: 9.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Jeffrie G. Murphy (1999). Shame Creeps Through Guilt and Feels Like Retribution. Law and Philosophy 18 (4):327 - 344.score: 9.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Alan Wertheimer (1976). Deterrence and Retribution. Ethics 86 (3):181-199.score: 9.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Hans Kelsen (1941). Causality and Retribution. Philosophy of Science 8 (4):533-556.score: 9.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Anthony P. Roark (1999). Retribution, the Death Penalty, and the Limits of Human Judgment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1):57-68.score: 9.0
    So serious a matter is capital punishment that we must consider very carefully any claim regarding its justification. Brian Calvert has offered a new version of the “argument from arbitrariness,” according to which a retributivist cannot consistently hold that some, but not all, first-degree murderers may justifiably receive the death penalty, when it is conceived to be a unique form of punishment. At the heart of this argument is the line-drawing problem, and I am inclined to think that it is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Laurence Carlin (2002). Reward and Punishment in the Best Possible World: Leibniz's Theory of Natural Retribution. Southern Journal of Philosophy 40 (2):139-160.score: 9.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. D. Klimchuk (2001). Retribution, Restitution and Revenge. Law and Philosophy 20 (1):81-101.score: 9.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Christopher Bennett (2004). Review Article: Forgiveness and the Claims of Retribution. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (1):89-101.score: 9.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Claus Offe (1993). Disqualification, Retribution, Restitution: Dilemmas of Justice in Post-Communist Transitions. Journal of Political Philosophy 1 (1):17-44.score: 9.0
  42. John Cottingham (1981). Retribution, Justice and Therapy. Philosophical Books 22 (4):241-243.score: 9.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. M. Margaret Falls (1987). Retribution, Reciprocity, and Respect for Persons. Law and Philosophy 6 (1):25 - 51.score: 9.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Daniel Farnham (2008). A Hegelian Theory of Retribution. Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (4):606-624.score: 9.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Molly Gardner (2011). Retribution, Deterrence, and Organ Donation. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10):7 - 9.score: 9.0
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 10, Page 7-9, October 2011.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. F. C. Sharp & M. C. Otto (1910). Retribution and Deterrence in the Moral Judgments of Common Sense. International Journal of Ethics 20 (4):438-453.score: 9.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Brian Calvert (1992). Retribution, Arbitrariness and the Death Penalty. Journal of Social Philosophy 23 (3):140-165.score: 9.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Shachar Eldar (2010). Punishing Organized Crime Leaders for the Crimes of Their Subordinates. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (2):183-196.score: 9.0
    The intuition holding that an organized crime leader should be punished more severely than a subordinate who directly commits an offence is commonly reflected in legal literature. However, positing a direct relationship between the severity of punishment and the level of seniority within an organizational hierarchy represents a departure from a more general idea found in much of the substantive criminal law writings: that the severity of punishment increases the closer the proximity to the physical commission of the offence. This (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Claudio Tamburrini (2010). Trading Truth for Justice? Res Publica 16 (2):153-167.score: 9.0
    In this article I pursue two aims. First I advance an internal critique of hard-core retribution as it is usually advanced by victims of human rights violations. The focus of this penal approach on submitting all the military personnel guilty of human rights violations to harsh punishments risks jeopardizing the (clearly retributive) demand of punishing all those involved in the abuses. Particularly when extensive time has elapsed after the misdeeds, the most rational policy seems to be a negotiation model (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 331