Philosophical Studies 174 (3):681-708 (2017)

Bill Wringe
Bilkent University
Many philosophers hold that punishment has an expressive dimension. Advocates of expressive theories have different views about what makes punishment expressive, what kinds of mental states and what kinds of claims are, or legitimately can be expressed in punishment, and to what kind of audience or recipients, if any, punishment might express whatever it expresses. I shall argue that in order to assess the plausibility of an expressivist approach to justifying punishment we need to pay careful attention to whether the things which punishment is supposed to express are aimed at an audience. For the ability of any version of expressivism to withstand two important challenges, which I call the harsh treatment challenge’ and the ‘publicity challenge’ respectively. will depend on the way it answers them. The first of these challenges has received considerable discussion in the literature on expressive theories of punishment; the second considerably less. This is unfortunate. For careful consideration of the publicity challenge should lead us to favor a version of the expressive theory which has been under-discussed: the view on which punishment has an intended audience, and on which the audience is society at large, rather than—as on the most popular version of that view—the criminal. Furthermore, this view turns out to be better equipped to meet the harsh treatment challenge, and to be so precisely because of the way in which it meets the publicity challenge.
Keywords Punishment  Expressive Theories of Punishment  Communicative Theories of Punishment  Antony Duff
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-016-0703-6
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Creating the Kingdom of Ends.Christine M. Korsgaard - 1996 - Cambridge University Press.
Value in Ethics and Economics.Elizabeth Anderson - 1993 - Harvard University Press.

View all 40 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Punishment, Jesters and Judges: A Response to Nathan Hanna.Bill Wringe - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (1):3-12.
Introduction: Forgiveness and Conflict.Paula Satne - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (4):999-1006.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Must Punishment Be Intended to Cause Suffering?Bill Wringe - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (4):863-877.
Perp Walks as Punishment.Bill Wringe - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):615-629.
Say What? A Critique of Expressive Retributivism.Nathan Hanna - 2008 - Law and Philosophy 27 (2):123-150.
Unintentional Punishment.Adam J. Kolber - 2012 - Legal Theory 18 (1):1-29.
Bennett’s Expressive Justification of Punishment.Peter Chau - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (4):661-679.
Punishment: Consequentialism.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Punishment.Thom Brooks - 2010 - Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Capital Punishment: Its Lost Appeal?Christopher P. Ferbrache - 2013 - Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 21 (2):75-89.
State Denunciation of Crime.Christopher Bennett - 2006 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (3):288-304.
Hate and Punishment.Antti Kauppinen - 2014 - Journal of Interpersonal Violence:1-19.
Punishment, Communication and Community.Antony Duff - 2003 - In Derek Matravers & Jonathan E. Pike (eds.), Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology. Routledge, in Association with the Open University.


Added to PP index

Total views
353 ( #24,774 of 2,446,600 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
35 ( #20,408 of 2,446,600 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes