The contemporary debate over retributivist punishment has become particularly vibrant in recent years, focusing increasingly on its political and economic as well as its philosophical aspects, and also on its practical ramifications i This view gets things entirely backwards: But of course the innocent and the guilty are not equal in number.
It is not clear how mistakes regarding the probability of detection are relevant to moral blameworthiness. Jeffrie Murphy reflects on his long struggle to ground retributive justice in other values, such as fairness and moral emotion, and shares his current doubts about this justificatory project.
In any case, this is a fine volume with a broad range of issues raised on the crucially important question of retributive punishment. Oxford University Press, Perhaps she recognizes one suspect from previous warrants, or she thinks he may be key to a larger ongoing investigation.
Tunick presents an interesting discussion of the problem of entrapment and how to reconcile it with retributivism.
Mark White has put together a series of thoughtful essays from some of the leading voices in the field. It remains an unanswered question, and this is just why we need more books like this one.
Gaus attempts to apply game theory to explain the evolutionary origins of the disposition to punish. His position therefore seems to entail either Retributivism essays on theory and policy the more victims you wrong the less punishable each past wrong becomes, or that the more victims you wrong the less punishable the next wrong becomes.
Sarah Holtman and Jane Johnson examine the role of retribution in the thought of Kant and Hegel, respectively, while Gerald Gaus inquires into the evolutionary origins and survival value of our retributive impulses. The difficulties that I see in the various arguments in this volume are a reflection of the very difficulty of the problem being set out: More This book offers analysis and explanations of new developments in retributivism, the philosophical account of punishment that holds that wrongdoers must be punished as a matter of right, duty, or justice, rather than to serve some general social purpose such as deterrence or individual purpose such as rehabilitation of the criminal or the vengeance of the victim.
Antony Duff and Dan Markel cast the criminal law as a system for holding fellow citizens morally accountable for flouting the values of the polity, and defend criminal punishment as an appropriate condemnatory response.
Either way, the communicative theory still lacks a convincing rationale. Now, it is certainly true that a defendant deserves no punishment if the police cause her to involuntarily commit a crime for example by intoxicating the defendant without her knowledge or consent.
I disagree with the abolitionists, but at the same time their voice needs to be heard, especially given that we still lack a convincing account of why retribution is justified. Indeed, there is at least one area in which such a defense is explicitly rejected: The critical commentary I provide below on many of these essays should be taken as an attempt to enter into dialogue with the various views, and by no means as a negative judgment on the quality of the volume.
The problem with this view is that uncertainty exists in all criminal cases, not just death penalty cases. White Recently, it was reported that the state of Missouri started providing cost estimates of various punishments to judges during the sentencing phase of criminal trials.
In any event, a mistake of fact generally exculpates a defendant only if the mistake refers to an element of the offense or a justifying or excusing circumstance.
This is true, but it is also misleading, since it suggests that if the guilty are not executed they will be imprisoned for life, while if the innocent are not executed they will go free. The twelve chapters in this book, written by leading legal scholars and philosophers, cover a wide range of approaches, understandings, and applications of retributivism.
Moreover, it is simply untrue that an act must cause or risk harm to others in order to constitute a punishable wrong.Retribution and Capital Punishment.
RETRIBUTIVISM: ESSAYS ON THEORY ON PRACTICE, Mark D. White, ed., Oxford University Press, Corrections & Sentencing Law & Policy eJournal.
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic FOLLOWERS mint-body.com (last visited Dec. 15, ); see also generally MICHAEL T ONRY (ED.), R ETRIBUTIVISM H AS A P AST: H AS IT A F UTURE?
(). In Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, Professor Mark D. White and his contributors offer analysis and explanations of new developments in retributivism, the philosophical account of punishment that holds that wrongdoers must be punished as a matter of right, duty, or justice, rather than to serve some general social purpose.
Get this from a library! Retributivism: essays on theory and policy. [Mark D White;].
Oxford University Press, DESCRIPTION In Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, Professor Mark D. White and his contributors offer analysis and explanations of new developments in retributivism, the philosophical account of punishment that holds that wrongdoers must be punished as a matter of right, duty, or justice, rather than.
Retributivism – broadly defined as the view that punishment is justified and motivated by considerations of justice, rights, and desert, rather than by personal.Download