A Defense of the Public Health-Quarantine Model of Punishment in Light of Obligations of the State to the Wrongdoer

Abstract

Punishment is traditionally justified retributively or consequentially; that is, with respect to the desert of the wrongdoer or the positive consequences of the punishment. State-sanctioned punishment, I find, cannot be justified in these traditional ways. In the first two chapters of this thesis I take a detailed look at these traditional theories of punishment and point out several strong moral objections which provide reason to believe they do not sufficiently justify punishment. In the next chapter, I argue that punishment can only be morally justified as a last resort of keeping society safe, as described in the Public Health-Quarantine Model of Punishment. That is, punishment can only be justified insofar as it is necessary for ensuring the safety of individuals in a society. Even then, however, I argue in the fourth chapter that the state creates an obligation to the wrongdoer when it punishes her for breaking the law. This obligation, I argue, is best fulfilled by providing every reasonable opportunity to assist with the wrongdoer’s rehabilitation into society. By taking seriously my recommendation of ensuring the health of the wrongdoer, I provide an interpretation of the PHQ model which avoids the “mere means” objection to punishment. That is, it ensures that wrongdoers are not merely used as a means of promoting the general wellbeing of society, but are treated as autonomous individuals who deserve the respect that is required of all people. Most importantly, it ensures that dangerous wrongdoers who are incarcerated for the safety of society are helped as quickly and efficiently as possible, similar to the way in which we are obligated to treat those with dangerously infectious diseases who are quarantined to ensure they cannot unintentionally harm others. By ensuring wrongdoers are treated this way, the PHQ model of punishment cannot lose sight of the needs of the individual in favour of the greater good for society. In that way, my argument that state-sanctioned punishment entails an obligation to the wrongdoers, actually strengthens the PHQ model from some common objections to the justification of punishment.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The Justification of Deserved Punishment.Stephen Kershnar - 1995 - Dissertation, The University of Nebraska - Lincoln
The Wrong of Mass Punishment.Hamish Stewart - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (1):45-57.
Capital Punishment as a Response to Evil.Peter Brian Barry - 2015 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 9 (2):245-264.
Punishment: Consequentialism.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Quinn on punishment and using persons as means.Michael Otsuka - 1996 - Law and Philosophy 15 (2):201 - 208.
Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment.Christian Thöni - 2014 - Theory and Decision 76 (4):529-545.
A Naturalistic Justification for Criminal Punishment.Diane Elizabeth Whiteley - 1998 - Dissertation, The University of British Columbia (Canada)
Making sense of retributivism.J. Angelo Corlett - 2001 - Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-26

Downloads
10 (#1,168,820)

6 months
1 (#1,516,429)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Eric Bohner
University of Calgary

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references