The Philosophical Vision of Legal Punishment

The concept of punishment represents one of the most difficult legal issues that are related to the concept of human freedom and responsibility. Since Antiquity, the brilliant minds of humanity contemplated about the sense of punishment and the function of this institution. Each epoch analyses this concept from different aspects and some of them are reflected in the actual legislation. The most important principles of contemporary criminal law were expounded by the Ancient, Modern and Contemporary philosophers. The field of research of this article is the philosophy of punishment of criminal law. In this study, we have applied the method of historical research of the proposed topic, which gives us the opportunity to analyze the development of criminal punishment and its goals from a historical perspective. In this paper, we aimed to determine the philosophical base of the legal punishment that legitimizes the application of sanctions to the person who committed the crime. We established the importance of the theories developed by brilliant thinkers for the contemporary concept of penal retribution and legal regulation of this institution. This theme generates several discussions that are formed in the process of comparison and debating of the ideas of influential philosophers regarding the purpose of criminal punishment. Therefore, we consider that the analysis of the theories of great thinkers gives us the possibility to understand the complexity of the phenomenon of criminal punishment, and leads to the more effective application of state constraint towards the offender.

PHILOSOPHICAL MEANING OF PUNISHMENT IN THE WORK OF S. I. GESSEN

Статья посвящена идеям о философском и практическом смысле уголовного наказания, высказанным в начале ХХ в. выдающимся русским мыслителем С. И. Гессеном. Данные идеи представлены в единственной работе философа, посвященной уголовно-правовой тематике: «Философии наказания». В работе Гессен, опираясь на наследие Канта, Гегеля, а также современные ему эмпирическое и рационалистическое направления в теории уголовно-правовой науки, на воззрения русского философа В. С. Соловьева, пытается сформулировать философский смысл уголовного наказания как института человеческой культуры. Гессен видит этот смысл в восстановлении нарушенного преступлением равновесия между законностью и жизнью. Иррациональный характер преступления и внесенный им в жизненный порядок хаос преодолеваются осуждением преступника, переживанием им этого осуждения и конкретными ограничениями прав преступника, которые полагаются законодательством. Осуждением восстанавливается справедливость, поскольку правовая норма, нарушенная преступлением, подтверждается актом правосудия. При этом осуждение в форме вынесения приговора рассматривается как низшая планка наказания, которая сама по себе достаточна для восстановления справедливости. Высшая планка наказания - это лишение преступника всех прав, за исключением одного. При этом Гессен не называет данного права, подчеркивая, что акт наказания, сохраняя за преступником право, подтверждает его правосубъектность, которая подразумевает, в том числе, право быть наказанным. Иные меры наказания, обычно назначаемые за преступление, рассматриваются Гессеном с точки зрения материализации осуждения как формы наказания. Они подводятся под психофизические особенности личности преступника, характер совершенного им преступления, возможности государства, а также конкретные цели наказания, которые могут стоять перед ним в различные исторические эпохи. Эти цели для Гессена с точки зрения его философской теории наказания безразличны по отношению к его сущности как акта восстановления справедливости. Высшая планка наказания также напрямую связана с вопросом смертной казни, которую Гессен выводит за рамки правового порядка. The article is devoted to the ideas about the philosophical and practical meaning of criminal punishment, expressed in the early twentieth century by the outstanding Russian thinker S. I. Gessen. These ideas are developed in the only work of the philosopher, enlightened criminal law topics - «The Philosophy of punishment». In his work, Gessen, relying on the legacy of Kant, Gegel, as well as the empirical and rationalistic trends in the theory of criminal law science, on the views of the Russian philosopher V. S. Solovyov, tries to formulate the philosophical meaning of criminal punishment as an institution of human culture. Gessen sees this meaning in restoring the balance between legality and life disturbed by crime. The irrational nature of the crime and the chaos introduced by it into the life order are overcome by the conviction of the criminal, his experience of this condemnation and specific restrictions on the rights of the criminal which are prescribed by law. By conviction justice is restored since the legal norm violated by the crime is confirmed by an act of justice. At the same time a conviction in the form of sentencing is considered as the lowest level of punishment which in itself is sufficient to restore justice. The highest level of punishment is the deprivation of the criminal of all rights with the exception of one. At the same time Gessen does not name this right. Emphasizing that the act of punishment while preserving the criminal's right confirms his legal personality which implies among other things the right to be punished. Other punishments usually imposed for a crime are considered by Gessen from the point of view of the materialization of the conviction as a form of punishment. They are summed up under the psychophysical characteristics of the criminal's personality, the nature of the crime committed by him, the capabilities of the state, as well as the specific goals of punishment that may face him in various historical epochs. These goals for Gessen from the point of view of his philosophical theory of punishment are indifferent to its essence as an act of restoring justice. The highest level of punishment is also directly related to the issue of the death penalty which Gessen takes out of the legal order.

The Aims of Punishment

Punishing people for crimes depends upon aims the penal system should go after. This is a field of inquiry always actual and sensitive. The present volume contains contributions of acknowledged experts in jurisprudence, criminal law theory, criminology and penology. It focuses on a variety of the most recent streams of thought as to the philosophy of punishment, on international and interdisciplinary criminal law issues, on the role criminal sanctions play as well as on law comparative issues concerning Cyprus and Greece. The theoretical part presents vistas relative to the relationship of criminal law and politics, whereas the international/interdisciplinary criminal justice discourse touches upon topics like EU and international criminal law, organized crime, sentencing, correctional policy and transitional justice. The comparative part deals with crucial sectors of applied discourse as to punishment like suspension of imprisonment, life term, penology problems and problems of specific sanctions like confiscation. The volume contributes thus to a comprehensive updating of the respective academic discussion.

THE AUTHORITY OF MORAL OVERSIGHT: ON THE LEGITIMACY OF CRIMINAL LAW

ABSTRACTAn influential view in recent philosophy of punishment is that the apparatus of criminal justice should be geared at least in part to state censure of wrongdoing. I argue that if it were to be so geared, such an apparatus would make ambitious claims to authority, and that the legitimacy of the relevant state would then depend on whether those claims can be vindicated. This paper looks first at what kind of authority is being claimed by this apparatus. The criminal law, I argue, cannot merely be thought of as claiming a right to rule and to be obeyed. Rather, its authority is better understood as the authority of moral oversight: a power to alter, at will (though within certain limits), citizens’ liability to answer for their compliance with—and to be officially censured for their failure to comply with—a designated set of pre-existing moral 7reasons. The paper then looks at whether a state could realistically be expected to possess such authority—that is, whether a state that claims to have such a power could ever be legitimate.

Principles and Philosophy of Punishment in Islamic Law with Special Reference to Malaysia

This article advances the theme that the conventional fiqhi articulations of the prescribed hudud punishments show inconsistency with the Qur’an and are, therefore, due for a corrective. Whereas the Qur’an makes repentance (tawbah) and reform (islah) integral to the hudud punishments, the fiqh expositions of these punishments have entirely ignored that aspect of the Qur’an. To carry out this corrective and rectify the hudud theory in the way it is suggested below partakes, we believe, in veritable ijtihad that Muslim jurists and jurisdictions are strongly advised to undertake and implement.

Probation and the philosophy of punishment

With the important exception of critiques of rehabilitation, philosophers of punishment do not often have probation as their focus. This (relative) neglect is mutual: when probation policymakers, scholars and practitioners reflect upon their own work, practices and values, the insights of the philosophy of punishment are rarely among their chosen resources. This paper attempts to make some connections and to point to some ways in which a fuller engagement might shed a different light on some familiar questions in the philosophy of punishment and enrich thinking about the work of probation.

Uwagi o zasadach wymiaru kary w polskich kodeksach karnych

Remarks on the principles of imposing penalties in Polish criminal codesThis paper covers issues related to the principles of imposing penalties. Apart from their considerable practical significance, these directives are closely related to the theory and philosophy of punishment. The purpose of these comments is a simple indication of the assumptions underlying the principles of imposing penalties, including the way of their evolution in Polish criminal law since 1932. The choice of theme is justified by the importance, the true wealth of problems that occur here and the theoretical but also research interests of Professor Tomasz Kaczmarek. The author wants to emphasize that the evolution of the principles of imposing penalties from the first statutory regulations runs properly. A clear tendency in the Polish legislature was consolidation and expansion of these directives, which remain compatible with the new less repressive criminal and sanctions policy. The Penal Code currently in force provided also appropriate lower limits of penalties.

O znaczeniu fundamentalnych zasad karania w polityce karnej — uwagi na tle przyczyn i skutków „masowego uwięzienia” w Stanach Zjednoczonych

The importance of the fundamental principles of punishment in criminal policy — remarks against a background of causes and results of “mass incarceration” in the United StatesIn the last century, in the United States, there was a significant change in the paradigms of punishment. In the 1970s the ideology of rehabilitation collapsed and reforms, which aimed at restoring justice in punishment and reduction of the prison population, were initiated. In the next decade, the movement aiming at liberal reforms lost the social and political support and was replaced with the repressive criminal policy. At the same time, a rapid increase in the prison population started which has been referred to in the criminological literature as the phenomenon of mass incarceration. After four decades of continuous growth in the number of persons deprived of their liberty there is no doubt that the social and financial consequences of a repressive system of punishment proved to be dramatic. For this reason, issues concerning the restoration of justice and rationality in punishment have again been discussed in the United States.Many European countries also experienced the “punitive turn” in the criminal policy at the end of the 20th century, although its scale was incomparable with what happened in the United States. It does not mean, however, that American discussions on the philosophy of punishment and criminal policy are irrelevant for Europe. Multidimensional negative effects of the American policy of mass incarceration indicate the dangers resulting from ignoring the basic principles of punishment that protect against abuses of the state’s power to punish. Additionally, they encourage a serious discussion about the integration of punishment theories with the empirical knowledge on the results of sentencing and sentence enforcement.