Law and Philosophy 1 (1):57 - 76 (1982)
Criteria for a successful theory of punishment include first, that it specify a reasonable limit to punishments in particular cases, and second, that it allow benefits to outweigh costs in a penal institution.It is argued that traditional utilitarian and retributive theories fail to satisfy both criteria, and that they cannot be coherently combined so as to do so. Retributivism specifies a reasonable limit in its demand that punishment equal crime, but this limit fails to allow benefits to outweigh costs of punishing. Utilitarians demand the latter but cannot guarantee the former. Combinations continue to violate one requirement or the other.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Theory of the Offender's Forfeited Right.Brian Rosebury - 2015 - Criminal Justice Ethics 34 (3):259-283.
Similar books and articles
Say What? A Critique of Expressive Retributivism.Nathan Hanna - 2008 - Law and Philosophy 27 (2):123-150.
Kantian Punishment and Retributivism: A Reply to Clark.Thom Brooks - 2005 - Ratio 18 (2):237–245.
The Significance of Private Burdens and Lost Benefits for a Fair-Play Analysis of Punishment.Shawn J. Bayern - unknown
The Rise and Fall of the Mixed Theory of Punishment.Whitley Kaufman - 2008 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):37-57.
A Retributive Argument Against Punishment.Greg Roebuck & David Wood - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
Retributivism and the Inadvertent Punishment of the Innocent.Larry Alexander - 1983 - Law and Philosophy 2 (2):233 - 246.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #60,911 of 2,151,990 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #281,207 of 2,151,990 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.