Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (1):125-142 (2018)

Abstract
Retributivism may seem wholly uninterested in the fit between penal policy and public opinion, but on one rendition of the theory, here called ‘popular retributivism,’ deserved punishments are constituted by the penal conventions of the community. This paper makes two claims against this view. First, the intuitive appeal of popular retributivism is undermined once we distinguish between context sensitivity and convention sensitivity about desert. Retributivism in general can freely accept context sensitivity without being committed to the stronger notion of convention sensitivity. Second, it is not obviously a merit of popular retributivism that it admits a gradual lowering of punishments by softening public opinion. Retributivists have reason to be skeptical of softening public opinion if it comes at the price of undermining the extent to which offenders are thought to deserve censure. In sum, in this paper, I argue that there are ways of making retributivism sensitive to public opinion without arriving at the conclusion that popular penal conventions should govern retributive justice itself.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11572-017-9415-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,687
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

Giving Desert its Due.Thomas M. Scanlon - 2013 - Philosophical Explorations 16 (2):1-16.
Political Philosophy for Earthlings.David Miller - 2008 - In David Leopold & Marc Stears (eds.), Political Theory: Methods and Approaches. Oxford University Press. pp. 29--48.
Punishment.Thom Brooks - 2010 - Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Retributivism In Extremis.Douglas Husak - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (1):3-31.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Do Offenders Deserve Proportionate Punishments?Göran Duus-Otterström - forthcoming - Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-18.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Desert of What? On Murphy’s Reluctant Retributivism.Linda Radzik - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (1):161-173.
Retributivism Revisited.Nathan Hanna - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
Fairness-Based Retributivism Reconsidered.Göran Duus-Otterström - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (3):481-498.
Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism.Jami L. Anderson - 1997 - Criminal Justice Ethics 16 (1):13-25.
Moral Responsibility, Guilt, and Retributivism.Randolph Clarke - 2016 - The Journal of Ethics 20 (1-3):121-137.
Distributive and Retributive Desert in Rawls.Jake Greenblum - 2010 - Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (2):169-184.
Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment.George Schedler - 2011 - Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (3):240-266.
Sarah Holtman.Retributivism Kant & Civic Respect - 2011 - In Mark White (ed.), Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy. Oxford University Press. pp. 107.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-03-31

Total views
18 ( #573,212 of 2,432,294 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #170,320 of 2,432,294 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes