Unlike topics such as criminal responsibility, dangerousness has only recently begun to interest philosophically minded penologists. The most likely explanation is that until the middle of this century the periods for which people who had done serious harm to others were incarcerated in the UK so long that when they were released their age or condition or circumstances made them unlikely to repeat their crimes. It was only when pressure of resources—in plain terms overcrowded prisons and mental hospitals—forced the shortening (...) of these periods that it became politically necessary to worry about the possible dangerousness of really substantial numbers of prisoners and patients who became eligible for release. The problem was not entirely new. A few lifers, for example, had been set free each year, under licences which lasted for the rest of their lives; and the Special Hospitals which housed the violent insane had discharged carefully selected inmates, also under supervision. But by the late 1960s the introduction of parole, the Mental Health Act and the abolition of capital punishment had greatly increased the number of cases in which the problem of dangerousness had to be faced, and difficult decisions had to be taken. (shrink)

Anatomists of criminal justice systems usually ignore the tiny organ called ‘mercy’ or ‘clemency’. Its name and shape may vary from one body politic to another, but its nature and function are uninterestingly obvious.It merely allows benign interference when the programming of the system seems to be having unacceptable effects in special cases.

When I first came across Robert Nozick′s Philosophical Explanations I was struck by the purity of his justification of punishment. Most latter-day retributivists are crypto-utilitarians, claiming to find some sort of benefit in penalties, even if it is only symbolic. Nozick too sees punishment as symbolic, but not as having any necessary utility. Paradoxically, perhaps, he is one of the few retributivists who insists that it matters what the offender makes of his penalty. Even more interesting is the importance he (...) attaches to the analogy between retribution and revenge. Most retributivists are at pains to distance themselves from vengeance: but not Nozick. (shrink)

THE ARTICLE CONSIDERS HOW THE CONCEPTION OF PSYCHOSOMATIC DISORDER FITS INTO THE DUALISTIC AND MONISTIC VIEWS OF DOCTORS ON THE MIND-BODY RELATIONSHIP, AND POINTS OUT HOW THE DIFFICULTY OF FITTING IT INTO THE CURRENT KIND OF MONISM WOULD BE LESSENED IF PSYCHOSOMATIC DISORDERS WERE DEFINED AS SOMATIC SYMPTOMS WHICH CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY TREATED BY METHODS USED TO TREAT PSYCHIC SYMPTOMS.