Law and Philosophy 41 (2):193-217 (2022)

In this paper, I defend a deflationary account of proportionality, which suggests that proportionality does not explain anything valuable about a system of punishment. Proportionality, rather, is a conventional means for presenting judgments about whether punishment fits the crime. A system of punishment is proportionate to the degree that it coheres with widely shared norms about punishment. There are many reasons such coherence could be valuable, not all of which are retributive. Hence, while on a deflationary view it may be important for a system of punishment to be proportionate, proportionality does not identify a uniquely important retributive value. I motivate the argument for a deflationary account of proportionality by canvassing some of the problems associated with both relative and absolute proportionality and examining how both legal theorists and courts have actually used the concept. I focus on the work of Doug Husak, and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10982-021-09423-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,307
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Subjective Experience of Punishment.Adam J. Kolber - 2009 - Columbia Law Review 109:182.
The Subjectivist Critique of Proportionality.Adam J. Kolber - 2019 - In Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Springer Verlag. pp. 571-595.
The Comparative Nature of Punishment.Adam J. Kolber - 2009 - Boston University Law Review 89 (5):1565-1608.
Against Proportional Punishment.Adam Kolber - 2013 - Vanderbilt Law Review 66:1141.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Proportionality and Self-Defense.Suzanne Uniacke - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance.Kevin Macnish - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):529-548.
Proportionality as a Universal Human Rights Principle.Jan Sieckmann - 2018 - In David Duarte & Jorge Silva Sampaio (eds.), Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Springer Verlag. pp. 3-24.
A Puzzle About Proportionality.David Alm - 2019 - Res Publica 25 (2):133-149.
Proportionality, Constraint, and Culpability.Mitchell N. Berman - 2021 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):373-391.
Gains and Losses in Balancing Social Rights.David Duarte - 2018 - In David Duarte & Jorge Silva Sampaio (eds.), Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Springer Verlag. pp. 49-69.
Proportionality and Self-Interest.Nir Eisikovits - 2010 - Human Rights Review 11 (2):157-170.
Proportionality: From the Concept to the Procedure.Artūras Panomariovas & Egidijus Losis - 2010 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 120 (2):257-272.


Added to PP index

Total views
9 ( #951,195 of 2,507,810 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,768 of 2,507,810 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes