Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):339-360 (2021)

Authors
Douglas Husak
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
Abstract
Efforts to apply the principle of proportionality to criminal sentences are notoriously problematic. But even though they are daunting, only a few legal philosophers believe we should give up trying to do so. Perhaps we can make progress overcoming some of the many legal difficulties by attending to how the principle is applied in non-legal contexts—that is, in contexts I call personal life. Proportionality, I believe, is an attractive principle in penal sentencing because it is an attractive principle in ordinary situations in which persons are sanctioned for wrongdoing. I briefly mention several familiar non-legal contexts in which sanctions have recently been imposed on celebrities or public figures for real or perceived wrongdoing. My hope is that sensitivity to how the principle of proportionality is interpreted in these contexts might facilitate efforts to apply this principle to sentencing domains. At first glance, proportionality as applied in non-legal contexts appears to differ from its penal analogue. I describe some of these alleged differences. Among the foremost is that judgments of proportionality in personal life often respond to how the transgressor has behaved apart from the particular incident that has attracted media attention. Penal sanctions, by contrast, are said to be imposed only for the particular crime charged. I argue that this difference is more apparent than real. I conclude that we can reach a few modest insights about how to apply the principle of proportionality in criminal sentencing by attending to its counterpart in personal life.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11572-021-09562-z
Options
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: 65,587
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

Moral Rebukes and Social Avoidance.Linda Radzik - 2014 - Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (4):643-661.
An Explanation of Retribution.Andrew Oldenquist - 1988 - Journal of Philosophy 85 (9):464-478.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
Proportionality and Compromises.Véronique Zanetti - 2020 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 17 (1):75-97.
Proportionality in Punishment.Youngjae Lee - 2019 - In Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Springer Verlag. pp. 549-569.
Proportionality: From the Concept to the Procedure.Artūras Panomariovas & Egidijus Losis - 2010 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 120 (2):257-272.
Proportionality and Self-Interest.Nir Eisikovits - 2010 - Human Rights Review 11 (2):157-170.
Proportionality and Self-Defense.Suzanne Uniacke - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-01-24

Total views
9 ( #932,843 of 2,461,975 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,803 of 2,461,975 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes