Skip to main content
Log in

The Expressivist Theory of Punishment Defended

  • Published:
Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Expressivist theories of punishment received largely favorable treatment in the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps predictably, the 2000s saw a slew of critical rejections of the view. It is now becoming evident that, while several objections to expressivism have found their way into print, three concerns are proving particularly popular. So the time is right for a big picture assessment. What follows is an attempt to show that these three dominant objections are not decisive reasons to give up the most plausible forms of the view. Moreover, in addition to the three common objections, expressivism has an acknowledged question mark concerning whether the value of punitive expression outweighs its drawbacks. Here I also map out some promising avenues that the expressivist can take to answer this question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Glasgow.

Additional information

For comments on previous versions of this article, I am very grateful to Thom Brooks, Victor Tadros, Bill Wringe, and two anonymous referees for Law and Philosophy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glasgow, J. The Expressivist Theory of Punishment Defended. Law and Philos 34, 601–631 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-015-9235-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-015-9235-z

Keywords

Navigation