Desert and the Justification of Punishment

Author(s):  
John Martin Fischer
Author(s):  
Richard Dagger

This book aims to develop a unified theory of political obligation and the justification of punishment that takes its bearings from the principle of fair play. Much has been written on each of these subjects, of course, including numerous essays in recent years that approach one or the other topic in fair-play terms. However, there has been no sustained effort to link the two in a fair-play theory of political obligation and punishment. This book undertakes such an effort. This introduction explains why such a theory is an attractive possibility and how the argument for it unfolds in the succeeding chapters.


1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5

It is hardly surprising that philosophers have long regarded the criminal law as fertile ground. As the most visible application of state power, the criminal law raises issues of the first importance to political philosophy: issues of liberty, justice, and the common good. In announcing and enforcing rules of behaviour the criminal law connects with the concerns of moral philosophers, who have paid particular attention to the justification of punishment and the moral basis of criminal responsibility. Lastly, since the criminal law is typically concerned with the actions of human beings, it raises issues in the philosophy of action. Philosophers have devoted much attention to such central criminal law concepts as voluntariness, intention, and causation.The essays collected here explore topics which fall into three broad groups: the interests protected by the criminal law, the relation of agents to outcomes, and defenses to otherwise criminal conduct. Criminal law protects certain types of interests against certain kinds of invasions. Not everything that sets back a person’s interests is subject to legal sanction. Among those interests that the law deems worthy of protection, only certain kinds of invasions merit criminalization. The papers by Marshall and Duff, Hampton, Lacey, and Brett all touch on issues of the moral basis of criminalization. Marshall and Duff focus on the general issue of criminalization, arguing that crimes merit a certain kind of public response because they are attacks on the public. Drawing out the implications of the familiar fact that the state is a party to a criminal proceeding, they argue that the criminal law appropriately addresses wrongs that are shared by the wider community. For Marshall and Duff, criminalization is about deciding that a wrong against one person is serious in a way that makes it a wrong against everyone in the community, and demands a collective response.


2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 131-148
Author(s):  
Stanisław Jędrczak

In the article, I try to present an outline of the theory of responsibility. Its double root – based on the logical distinction between criterion and testimony – is derived from Abelard’s anthropology of action and the theory of personhood developed by Timothy Chappell. Initially, I discuss the metaphysical difficulties related to the problem of freedom (especially linked with determinism). Afterwards, following Abelard, I try to indicate an anthropological justification of punishment based on guilt. The last part of the paper is devoted to the attempt to enter the free will into a broader view of Chappell’s theory. The aim of the work is to prepare the ground for future studies on the proleptic notion of personhood and its further application within the philosophy of law.


2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 350-366
Author(s):  
Alfonso Donoso

AbstractBy offering a critical analysis of Nicolás Maloberti’s recent theory and justification of punishment, this article accounts for a series of principles and considerations that any liberal and Lockean theory of punishment must take seriously. This article contends that Locke’s conception of the state – an institution grounded on the right to punish violators of natural rights – and the basic character of the right to property within Locke’s scheme of rights are elements that should lead us to affirm that no genuine liberal theory of punishment can dispense with the political character of the right to punish.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document