Bookmark and Share

Punishment in Criminal Law

Edited by Gustavo Beade (Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel)
Related categories
Siblings:
861 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 861
  1. Francis A. Allen (1996). The Habits of Legality: Criminal Justice and the Rule of the Law. Oxford University Press USA.
    In this broad consideration of American criminal justice today, Allen suggests that the way to a more effective penal policy can be found in a closer adherence to the law rather than in the current tendency to bypass certain laws in the name of the "war on crime".
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. R. A. Duff (1996). Criminal Attempts. Oxford University Press UK.
    This book reflects the belief that a careful study of the Law of Attempts should be both interesting in itself, as well as being a productive route into a number of larger and deeper issues in criminal law theory and in the philosophy of action. By identifying the legal doctrines which courts and legislatures have developed or adopted, the author goes on to ask whether and how they can be rationalized or rendered persuasive. Such an approach involves paying detailed attention (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Fadi Abou-Rihan (1994). Joel Feinberg, Ed., Reason & Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 14 (2):94-96.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Neil Abramson (2010). Why Punishment Fails or Succeeds: Existential Reflections From One Being Punished. Philosophy for Business 57.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Gloria Bernal Acevedo (2002). Las Normas Rectoras En El Nuevo C'odigo Penal Colombiano.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. H. B. Acton & Ted Honderich (1970). The Philosophy of Punishment. Philosophy 45 (174):341-341.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  7. David M. Adams (2016). Belief and Death: Capital Punishment and the Competence-for-Execution Requirement. Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (1):17-30.
    A curious and comparatively neglected element of death penalty jurisprudence in America is my target in this paper. That element concerns the circumstances under which severely mentally disabled persons, incarcerated on death row, may have their sentences carried out. Those circumstances are expressed in a part of the law which turns out to be indefensible. This legal doctrine—competence-for-execution —holds that a condemned, death-row inmate may not be killed if, at the time of his scheduled execution, he lacks an awareness of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. David M. Adams (1996). Fitting Punishment to Crime. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 15 (4):407-415.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. David M. Adams (1996). Review: Fitting Punishment to Crime. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 15 (4):407 - 415.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Jacob Adler (1988). Why Submit to Punishment? Southwest Philosophy Review 4 (1):127-128.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. John Alderson (1983). Society, Crime and Criminal Behaviour. Journal of Biosocial Science 15 (1):121.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. L. Alexander (2001). Arthur Ripstein, Equality, Responsibility, and the Law. Law and Philosophy 20 (6):617-635.
  13. Larry Alexander (2014). Hart and Punishment for Negligence. In C. G. Pulman (ed.), Hart on Responsibility.
  14. Larry Alexander (2013). Can Self-Defense Justify Punishment? Law and Philosophy 32 (2-3):159-175.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Larry Alexander (2011). Culpability. In John Deigh & David Dolinko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Larry Alexander (2004). The Philosophy of Criminal Law. In Jules Coleman & Scott Shapiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Larry Alexander (2002). Philosophy of Criminal Law. In Jules Coleman & Scott J. Shapiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Larry Alexander (2002). Criminal Liability for Omissions - An Inventory of Issues. In Stephen Shute & Andrew Simester (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  19. Larry Alexander (1991). Self-Defense, Punishment, and Proportionality. Law and Philosophy 10 (3):323 - 328.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20. Larry Alexander (1986). Consent, Punishment, and Proportionality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (2):178-182.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21. Larry Alexander (1983). Retributivism and the Inadvertent Punishment of the Innocent. Law and Philosophy 2 (2):233 - 246.
    Retributivism is generally thought to forbid the punishment of the innocent, even if such punishment would produce otherwise good results, such as deterrence. It has recently been argued that because capital punishment always entails the risk of executing an innocent person, instituting capital punishment is tantamount to intentionally taking innocent lives and therefore cannot be justified on retributive grounds. I argue that there are several versions of retributivism, only one of which might categorically forbid risking punishing innocent persons. I also (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  22. Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (2010). Response to Critics. Law and Philosophy 29 (4):483-504.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23. Larry Alexander, Kimberly Kessler Ferzan & Stephen J. Morse (2009). Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press.
    This book presents a comprehensive overview of what the criminal law would look like if organised around the principle that those who deserve punishment should receive punishment commensurate with, but no greater than, that which they deserve. Larry Alexander and Kimberly Kessler Ferzan argue that desert is a function of the actor's culpability, and that culpability is a function of the risks of harm to protected interests that the actor believes he is imposing and his reasons for acting in the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Peter Alldridge (2002). Making Criminal Law Known. In Stephen Shute & A. P. Simester (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part. Oxford University Press. pp. 103--106.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. David Alm (2013). Self-Defense, Punishment and Forfeiture. Criminal Justice Ethics 32 (2):91-107.
    According to the self-defense view, the moral justification of punishment is derived from the moral justification of an earlier threat of punishment for an offense. According to the forfeiture view, criminals can justly be punished because they have forfeited certain rights in virtue of their crimes. The paper defends three theses about these two views. (1) The self-defense view is false because the right to threaten retaliation is not independent of the right to carry out that threat. (2) A more (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. Jami L. Anderson (2010). Comprehending the Distinctively Sexual Nature of the Conduct. Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.
    Since the 1970s, sexual assault laws have evolved to include prohibitions of sexual acts with cognitively impaired individuals. The argument justifying this prohibition is typically as follows: A sex act that is forced (without the legally valid consent of) someone is sexual assault. Cognitively impaired individuals, because they lack certain intellectual abilities, cannot give legally valid consent. Therefore, cognitively impaired individuals cannot consent to sex. Therefore, sex acts with cognitively impaired individuals is sexual assault. The prohibition of sex with such (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Jami L. Anderson (2009). Bodily Privacy, Toilets, and Sex Discrimination: The Problem of "Manhood" in a Women's Prison. In Olga Gershenson Barbara Penner (ed.), Ladies and Gents. pp. 90.
    Unjustifiable assumptions about sex and gender roles, the untamable potency of maleness, and gynophobic notions about women's bodies inform and influence a broad range of policy-making institutions in this society. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit continued this ignoble cultural pastime when they decided Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections. In this decision, the Everson Court accepted the Michigan Department of Correction's claim that “the very manhood” of male prison guards both threatens the safety (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. 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, or the hope of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Jami L. Anderson (1998). Understanding Punishment as Annulment. Social Philosophy Today 13:215-226.
    Hegel claims that punishment is justified because it annuls crimes thereby revealing the criminal act for what it is, a will “null and void.” In this paper I analyze the complex notion of annulment, arguing that Hegel is claiming that punishment does not change the past, but alters the status of the criminal will so as to reveal that will for what it is, a violation of a victim’s rights. In short, punishment invalidates the criminal's will and validates the victim's (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Jeffery L. Arbuckle & Kennon A. Lattal (1990). Economic Variables Affecting Punishment Warmup. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 28 (4):315-318.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Mordekhai Argaman (1990). Akhifat Ha-Din Ha-Pelili Be-Yi'sra®El Funòktsiyot Òve-Samkhuyot. Hotsa®at Tamar.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Yoav Ariel (1989). Chapter 4. On Punishment. In K'ung-Ts'ung-Tzu: The K'ung Family Masters' Anthology. Princeton University Press. pp. 93-97.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Richard Arneson (2005). Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism. Legal Theory 11 (3):259-284.
    Joel Feinberg was a brilliant philosopher whose work in social and moral philosophy is a legacy of excellent, even stunning achievement. Perhaps his most memorable achievement is his four-volume treatise on The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, and perhaps the most striking jewel in this crowning achievement is his passionate and deeply insightful treatment of paternalism.1 Feinberg opposes Legal Paternalism, the doctrine that “it is always a good reason in support of a [criminal law] prohibition that it is necessary (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  34. Bruce A. Arrigo (ed.) (2014). Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics. Sage Publications.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Daniel Artenosi, Constructing a Moral Education Theory of Punishment.
    This thesis reconstructs John Rawl's Original Position in order to show that within a liberal democratic culture, the institution of punishment ought to conform to the Moral Education Theory of Punishment, put forth by Jean Hampton. According to Hampton, punishment should facilitate a medium where the state educates the criminal on the moral implications of her wrongdoing. I argue that citizens would select the Moral Education Theory of Punishment in the Original Position, since it offers the best opportunity to redress (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Andrew Ashworth (2011). Attempts. In John Deigh & David Dolinko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Andrew Ashworth (2011). The Criminal Law's Ambivalence About Outcomes. In Rowan Cruft, Matthew H. Kramer & Mark R. Reiff (eds.), Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff. Oxford University Press. pp. 159.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Andrew Ashworth (1996). Criminal Liability in a Medical Context: The Treatment of Good Intentions. In A. P. Simester & A. T. H. Smith (eds.), Harm and Culpability. Oxford University Press. pp. 173--93.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39. Andrew Ashworth & Lucia Zedner (2008). Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (1):21-51.
    Recent years have seen mounting challenge to the model of the criminal trial on the grounds it is not cost-effective, not preventive, not necessary, not appropriate, or not effective. These challenges have led to changes in the scope of the criminal law, in criminal procedure, and in the nature and use of criminal trials. These changes include greater use of diversion, of fixed penalties, of summary trials, of hybrid civil–criminal processes, of strict liability, of incentives to plead guilty, and of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  40. Andrew Ashworth, Lucia Zedner & Patrick Tomlin (eds.) (2013). Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
    Are preventive justice measures justified? Do they needlessly blur the boundaries between criminal and civil law, signalling a change in the architecture of security? The contributors in this volume re-assess the foundations for the range of coercive measures that states now take in the name of prevention and public protection.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Office of Technology Assessment (1982). An Assessment of Alternatives for a National Computerized Criminal History System. Acm Sigcas Computers and Society 12 (3):14-25.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Vilhelm Aubert & Sheldon L. Messinger (1958). The Criminal and the Sick. Inquiry 1 (1-4):137 – 160.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43. Joseph J. Ayd (1931). The Criminal. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):160-169.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Enrique Bacigalupo (1994). Lineamientos de la Teor'ia Del Delito.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Enrique Bacigalupo (1991). Pensamiento Penal Moderno.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Mirko Bagaric (2000). Double Punishment and Punishing Character: The Unfairness of Prior Convictions. Criminal Justice Ethics 19 (1):10-28.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47. Brenda Baker (1991). C.T. Sistare, Responsibility And Criminal Liability. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 11:136-137.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Brenda M. Baker (1991). CT Sistare, Responsibility and Criminal Liability Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 11 (2):136-137.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Roozbeh Baker, Proportionality in the Criminal Law: The Differing American Versus Canadian Approaches to Punishment.
    The focus of this Article shall be upon the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both of which prohibit “cruel and unusual punishment”; and their effect on mandatory criminal sentencing (via penal statute) in the two countries. Part I of this Article shall briefly explain the differences between the jurisdictional application of criminal justice in the United States and Canada. Part II of this Article shall present and explain (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Wen Bao & Yuhua Li (eds.) (2006). 21 Shi Ji Xing Fa Jia Zhi Qu Xiang Yan Jiu. Zhi Shi Chan Quan Chu Ban She.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 861