scholarly journals Criminal Justice Without Moral Responsibility

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58
Author(s):  
Dane Shade Hannum

This paper grants the hard determinist position thatmoral responsibility is not coherent with a deterministic worldview and examines hard determinist alternatives to traditionalpunishment. I claim that hard determinist accounts necessarilyinvolve consequentialist reasoning and discuss problems stemmingfrom them. I also argue that a revised model of traditionalconsequentialism called complex consequentialism, a view in whichmultiple values may be considered as ends, provides the best moralframework for a hard determinist account. Ultimately, I examine acriminal justice model that draws heavily on public health ideals andargue that it should considered a complex consequentialist account.

Author(s):  
Farah Focquaert ◽  
Andrea L. Glenn ◽  
Adrian Raine

In Chapter 13, the authors address the issue of free will skepticism and criminal behavior, asking how we should, as a society, deal with criminal behavior in the current era of neuroexistentialism and if our belief in free will is essential to adequately addressing it, or if neurocriminology offer a new way of addressing crime without resorting to backward-looking notions of moral responsibility and guilt. They argue for a neurocriminological approach to “moral answerability” and forward-looking claims of responsibility that focus on the moral betterment or moral enhancement of individuals prone to criminal behavior and on reparative measures toward victims, placed within a broader public health perspective of human behavior. Within this framework, neurocriminology approaches to criminal behavior may provide specific guidance within a broader moral enhancement framework. Rather than undermining current criminal justice practices, the free will skeptics’ approach can draw on neurocriminological findings to reduce immoral behavior.


2021 ◽  

Criminological concerns with the victimization of the elderly has developed parallel to, and independently of, the elder abuse debate. Criminologists have traditionally been concerned with the commission of acts against the older person in public as opposed to private space. A further hindrance to criminological enquiry is the practice of defining elder abuse in terms of victim needs, rather than of basic human rights. There has been no neat evolutionary process from positive treatment of the elderly, attributed to some golden age in the past to their increasing present victimization rates globally. Elder victimization is a long way from the simplistic notions of “granny battering.” There is general agreement among scholars that older people regularly suffer victimization in private space—in the household and in care institutions. They regularly experience multiple forms of abuse. One can attribute some of these experiences to major social changes as declining family support for older people diminishes and the proportion of young to old decreases. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that as the global population ages, the number of people aged sixty years and older is estimated to reach 1.2 billion worldwide by 2025. More pointedly, the longevity is also inextricably linked to the maltreatment of the global old. In particular, we have seen offenders apprehended in transgressions against the young, women, and ethnic minorities but have yet to see an active criminal justice response concerned with the experience of elder victimization. The discipline’s reluctance to recognize elder victimization is associated with it commonly being labeled as victimization by intimates, and to be understood through the lenses of psychology and psychiatry rather than through a criminal justice model. Care and individual needs of the elderly have been the traditional focus, rather than social justice, reason, and rights. Justice and rights involve choice and free will. Older people are not simply passive recipients of other people’s actions—they resist their victimization and often fight back. This article is a critical exposition of the sources available on elders abused as part of a larger account of the experience of older people worldwide. In particular, the reader is reminded that this article is limited due to publishing word constraints. Therefore, it provides a balanced, limited overview of the major literature and research available in the Western context. More pointedly, the literature cited here is intended to reflect on recent scholarship considered to have the potential of adding to the debate in criminology and elder victimization. Given that the study of elder abuse is still in its infancy in the discipline of criminology, this article is therefore necessarily interdisciplinary.


Author(s):  
Ruth Cross ◽  
Louise Warwick-Booth ◽  
Sally Foster

Abstract This book chapter aims to: (i) explore the role of the epistemic and academic community of health promoters; (ii) suggest that there are new and emerging public health problems to take into account; (iii) reinforce the need to defend the radical intent of the Ottawa Charter and to develop further anti-oppressive practice; (iv) describe how the health promotion discourse is changing, and moving into new realms of wellbeing; (v) reinforce the importance of hearing lay voices and understanding 'healthworlds'; and (vi) present some ideas for moving forward the value base of health promotion. Fields of endeavour apart from health promotion also struggle with the goals of empowerment, equality, justice, and are also contemplating how to deal with challenges of the 21st century, such as complexity, globalization and social capital. These fields might include education, criminal justice, social work, sport, development, and so provide rich and relevant avenues for further reading.


Author(s):  
Paul Cairney ◽  
Emily St Denny

First, we describe the general issues that governments face when pursuing social and criminal justice policies in a multi-centric environment. Both governments manage the same tensions between relatively punitive and individual versus supportive and population-wide measures to reduce crime, as part of an overall cross-cutting focus on prevention and early intervention. Second, we identify the historic policymaking strategies that UK governments have used to combine social policy and criminal justice policy, often with reference to target populations who—according to several UK ministers—do not pay their fair share to society and do not deserve state help. Third, we show how such trends influence preventive policies in specific areas such as drugs policy, in which the UK still reserves responsibility for drugs classification. Fourth, we use this UK context to identify the extent to which Scottish policy has a greater emphasis of social over criminal justice. To do so, we use the case study of a window of opportunity for a public health approach to serious violence. We focus on Scotland as the relatively innovative government on this issue, to provide context for initial analysis of the UK government’s proposed policy shift.


Author(s):  
Gary Tennis ◽  
Kenneth J. Martz ◽  
Jac A. Charlier

Approximately two-thirds of America’s incarcerated population suffers with untreated or undertreated substance use disorders, and many of those individuals commit several crimes related to drug use and addiction on a daily basis prior to being incarcerated. To end the opioid epidemic in the United States we not only need to bolster our health care and public health response to substance use disorders, we need to engage the criminal justice system as a specific touchpoint for public health intervention in communities and states across the country. The principal argument in the chapter is that while individuals with opioid and/or other substance use disorders should get treatment before ever being involved in crime—if they are justice-involved, it is imperative that the criminal justice system serve as a belated but necessary public health and health care intervention supportive of treatment, recovery, and prevention of addiction.


Youth Justice ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 147322542090284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Smith

This article draws on historical understandings and contemporary models of diversion in order to develop a critical framework and agenda for progressive practice. The argument essentially revolves around the contention that typically diversionary interventions have been constrained by the contextual and ideological frames within which they operate. They have in some cases been highly successful in reducing the numbers of young people being drawn into the formal criminal justice system; however, this has largely been achieved pragmatically, by way of an accommodation with the prevailing logic of penal practices. Young people have been diverted at least partly because they have been ascribed a lesser level of responsibility for their actions, whether by virtue of age or other factors to which their delinquent behaviour is attributed. This ultimately sets limits to diversion, on the one hand, and also offers additional legitimacy to the further criminalisation of those who are not successfully ‘diverted’, on the other. By contrast, the article concludes that a ‘social justice’ model of diversion must ground its arguments in principles of children’s rights and the values of inclusion and anti-oppressive practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document