Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (3):240-266 (2011)

Authors
Abstract
Abstract I argue for the following, which I dub the ?fallibility syllogism?: (1) All systems of criminal punishment that inflict suffering on the innocent are unjust from a desert-based, retributivist point of view. (2) All past or present human systems of criminal punishment inflict suffering on the innocent. (3) Therefore, all such human systems of criminal punishment are unjust from a desert-based, retributivist point of view. My argument for the first premise is organized in the following way. I define what a human system of punishment is. I offer a distinction between retributive and utilitarian approaches to punishment. I distinguish between weak retributivism embodied in the second premise and strong retributivism, which I argue is the basis for the weak version. I argue that on retributivist grounds, each case of punishment is just when it matches the seriousness of the wrongdoing of the offender and that systems of punishment are just from a retributivist point of view when there are no exceptions to this match-up. In making my case, I will use Kant's retributivism as the version of my choice, so I will spend some time showing that recent reinterpretations of Kant (arguing that he was not a thoroughgoing retributivist), even if they are correct, are consistent with my view. Ultimately, however, I argue that the better view is that Kant was a thoroughgoing retributivist.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/0731129X.2011.628829
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: 52,956
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Making Sense of Retributivism.J. Angelo Corlett - 2001 - Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
Say What? A Critique of Expressive Retributivism.Nathan Hanna - 2008 - Law and Philosophy 27 (2):123-150.
A Hegelian Theory of Punishment.Jami L. Anderson - 1999 - Legal Theory 5 (4):363-388.
Annulment Retributivism: A Hegelian Theory of Punishment.Jami L. Anderson - 1999 - Cambridge University Press 5 (4):363-388.
Kant's Theory of Punishment.Thom Brooks - 2003 - Utilitas 15 (2):206.
Rehabilitating Retributivism.Mitchell N. Berman - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (1):83-108.
Fallibility and Retribution.Göran Duus-Otterström - 2010 - Law and Philosophy 29 (3):337-369.
Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism.Jami L. Anderson - 1997 - Criminal Justice Ethics 16 (1):13-25.
Retributivism Revisited.Nathan Hanna - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (2):473-484.
A Kantian Critique of Kant's Theory of Punishment.Merle J.-C. - 2000 - Law and Philosophy 19 (3):311-338.
Retributivist Arguments Against Capital Punishment.Thom Brooks - 2004 - Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2):188–197.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-12-04

Total views
56 ( #168,655 of 2,343,886 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #332,548 of 2,343,886 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes