4 edition of Retribution and the Theory of Punishment (Philosophy and Society) found in the catalog.
Retribution and the Theory of Punishment (Philosophy and Society)
Hugo Adam Bedau
Published
June 1987
by Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc
.
Written in
| The Physical Object | |
|---|---|
| Format | Hardcover |
| ID Numbers | |
| Open Library | OL11557146M |
| ISBN 10 | 0847667537 |
| ISBN 10 | 9780847667536 |
Retribution; The concepts of “just desserts” and “let the punishment fit the crime” are other ways to describe this theory, in which justice is seen in terms of fairness and proportionality. Proponents of retribution believe that the harshness of the punishment should fit . retributive theory.3 During the last 5 years or so, however, with the growing con viction that there were no known effective measures or rehabilitation,4 and with the steadily rising figures in violent and other crimes, the popular and professionalAuthor: Kurt Baier.
“Let the punishment fit the crime” captures the essence of retribution. Proponents advocate just deserts, which defines justice in terms of fairness and proportionality. Retributivists aim to dispense punishment according to an offender's moral blameworthiness (as measured by the severity of crimes of which the offender was convicted). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts. Nature teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated.
Retribution is one of the principal justifications of punishment, including legal punishment in the context of criminal justice. The core of a retributivist approach is the notion of desert—that punishment is justified by being deserved, with the fact (not the feeling) of guilt being the basis of desert. vi Table of Contents 1 Kantian Protective Deterrence: An Introduction 1 A Changing Scholarship 4 A New Direction 10 A Theory of Punishment 14 Outline 20 2 A History of Violence: Punishment and the State in Early Modern Europe 26 Punishment as a Natural Right 30Author: Robert Hoffman.
The legal protection of human rights
Realistic typing exercises.
Battle File.
great duties of life
philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach.
55 trends
Romeyn de Hooghe
Air Almanac
Dancing with Mr. Darcy
Great Britain
American Political Biographies
Fast feasts
other Mexico
Graham County
The strangers at Briery Hall
THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY VOLUME LXXV, NO. II, NOVEMBER I RETRIBUTION AND THE THEORY OF PUNISHMENTS HE idea that retribution, along with prevention of crime T and reformation of convicted criminals, plays a role in the nature and practice of punishment is a common theme in accounts of punishment at least since T.
Green., Exactly what. Retribution and the Theory of Punishment (Philosophy & Society) by Hugo Adam Bedau (Author) ISBN A simple retributive theory holds that the justification of punishment is simply that offenders deserve to be punished – for no further reason than that they have done wrong.
A different theory is that offenders take an unfair advantage over non-offenders and punishment restores the just balance of benefits and burdens. Retribution is a backward‐looking theory of punishment. It looks to the past to determine what to do in the present. This theory is based on the idea of vindictive justice, or a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye.
Retribution, Crime Reduction and the Justification of Punishment David Wood. Crime Reduction and the Justification of Punishment, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol Issue 2, SUMMER, the paper ends by saying a little on how a mere conjunction dualist theory of punishment leads on to a similar theory of criminalization.
Author Cited by: It is an expansion of the discussion of Kant’s theory of punishment in my book Kant: The Philosophy of Right (London: Macmillan, ) and has been extensively revised for inclusion in the present volume.
It still overlaps other essays in this volume more than I would like, but this could not be avoided without destroying its integrity as an Cited by: 7. theory, presented the contrast retributive theory of punishment, which is of non-utilitarian on the premises that punishment is not means to an end but end in itself.
This tug of war between the George Hegel and Immanuel Kant on one side and Jeremy Bentham on the other side is carried even by 20th century scholars.
InLord Denning appearingFile Size: 63KB. CHAPTER 4 CRIME AND THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT CRIME In ordinary language, the term crime denotes an unlawful act punishable by the state. The term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,1 though statutory definitions have been provided for.
Retribution and Capital Punishment - Oxford Scholarship This chapter argues that contrary to popular wisdom (and clear pronouncements by classic retributivists such as Kant), retributivists should oppose capital punishment for murderers.
He concedes that murderers may deserve to be executed, and that this can be carried out fairly and : Thom Brooks. years. But if a book is a collective enterprise between the author and those who try to influence the author (as surely it is), then, in order to be consistent with the ideas endorsed in this book, it must be said that if the book before you has any merit, some of the praise belongs to me; and if it has none, some of the blame belongs to you.
This theory of retributive justice forms its foundation on the principle of punishment is the best response to crime. The reasoning behind the same is that when the offender breaks the law, only forfeit of something in return shall result in the delivering of justice.
Retribution, Justice, and Therapy Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Authors: that a retributive theory of punish ment is the only theory of punishment resting on such a foundation and thus is the only morally acceptable theory of punishment; that the twentieth century's faddish movement toward a "scientific" or therapeutic response to.
Retributive theory. This theory is based on the idea of vindictive justice, or a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. The principle is that if a man has caused the loss of a man’s eye, his eye one shall cause to be lost; if he has shattered a man’s limb, one shall shatter his limb; if a man has made the tooth of a man that is his equal fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out.
if the ultimate in punishment is said not to deter. It is this that has deposited a desire to examine the role of deterrence and retribution in sentencing in South African courts.
This work therefore essentially confines itself to the practice 1 "Criminal justice and penology" () SACC i. Although Kant is often regarded an extreme retributivist regarding judicial punishment, the need to deter crime also plays a significant role in his theory of criminal law.
Kant's special way of combining deterrence and retribution, however, must be distinguished from others that are less plausible. Kant thought that criminal punishments should be designed to match the victim's empirically. When society executes retribution on criminals by means of fines, incarceration or death, these punishments are a social expression of the personal vengeance the criminal's victims feel, rationally confined (it is hoped) to what is best for society as a whole.
the retributivist bases the theory of punishment on the belief that an offender deserves to receive suffering that matches the severity of the crime committed. ASSUMING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PRINCIPLE (AN ACCEPTANCE THAT IS BASED MORE FROM BELIEF THAN LOGIC), THE RETRIBUTIVIST HAS THE DIFFICULT TASK OF MATCHING VARIOUS PUNISHMENTS TO.
Kant's Theory of Punishment strate that Kant's theory of punishment is not purely retributive.6 I believe that much of the reason for interpretative confusion is due to the very different senses in which Kant speaks of punishment regarding moral and positive law. When these standpoints are taken.
Retributive theory of punishment: Retributive theory is based on rights, desert and justice. The guilty deserve to be punished, and no moral consideration relevant to punishment outweighs the offender’s criminal desert is the philosophy of retributive theory.
According to Hegel, punishment ‘annuls’ the crime. It aims at restoring the social. Criminal Punishment and the Pursuit of Justice Mike C. Materni * ABSTRACT Since the beginning of recorded history societies have punished offenders while at the same time trying to justify the practice on moral and rational grounds and to clarify the relationship between punishment and Size: KB.
By Michelle Maiese Updated June by Sarah Cast and Heidi Burgess Originally published May What Retributive Justice Is Retributive Justice is a matter of giving people their just deserts. The central idea is that the offender has gained unfair advantages through his or her behavior, and that punishment will set this imbalance straight.
Retribution theology is concerned with rewards and punishments here and now. Retribution theology is countered in Scripture.
The fact is that not all good people are rewarded with good things in this life (Job and Paul are notable examples).In the absence of punishment, there will be chaos, confusion and disorder in the state and the weak will be exploited and victimized by the strong.
Process of punishment is essential for the smooth running of society. Following are the theories of punishment: 1. Retributive Theory: Blood for blood is the basis of this theory.
