Advertisement

The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 387–406 | Cite as

Two Ways of Thinking About the Value of Deserved Punishment

  • Richard L. LippkeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Numerous retributivists hold that deserved punishment has intrinsic value. A number of puzzles regarding that claim are identified and discussed. An alternative, more Kantian account of intrinsic value is then identified and the ways in which legal punishment might be understood to cohere with it are explored. That account focuses on the various ways in which legal punishment might be persons-respecting. It is then argued that this Kantian account enables us to solve or evade the puzzles generated by the other intrinsic value account.

Keywords

Retributivism Intrinsic value Deserved punishment 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Marcia Baron and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on previous drafts.

References

  1. Alexander, Larry. 2000. Deontology at the Threshold. San Diego Law Review 37: 893–912.Google Scholar
  2. Andenaes, Johannes. 1966. The General Preventive Effects of Punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114: 949–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, Mitchell. 2008. Punishment and Justification. Ethics 118: 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, M. 2001. Intrinsic Value. Philosophical Studies 102: 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, Ben. 2006. Two Concepts of Intrinsic Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, John, and Philip Pettit. 1990. Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Byrd, Sharon. 1989. Kant’s Theory of Punishment: Deterrent in Its Threat, Retributive in Its Execution. Law and Philosophy 8: 151–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cahill, Michael. 2007. Retributive Justice in the Real World. Washington University Law Review 85: 815–870.Google Scholar
  9. Cahill, Michael. 2011. Punishment Pluralism. In Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, ed. Mark D. White, 25–48. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dagger, Richard. 1993. Playing Fair with Punishment. Ethics 103: 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darwall, Stephen. 1977. Two Kinds of Respect. Ethics 88: 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwall, Stephen. 2019. Honor, History, and Relationship: Essays in Second-Personal Ethics II. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, Lawrence. 1972. They Deserve to Suffer. Analysis 32: 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolinko, David. 1997. Retributivism, Consequentialism, and the Intrinsic Goodness of Punishment. Law and Philosophy 16: 507–528.Google Scholar
  15. Duff, R.A. 1986. Trials and Punishments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Duff, R.A. 2001. Punishment, Communication, and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Duus-Otterström, Göran. 2010. Fallibility and Retribution. Law and Philosophy 29: 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duus-Otterström, Göran. 2013. Why Retributivists Should Endorse Leniency in Punishment. Law and Philosophy 32: 459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewing, A.C. 1929. The Morality of Punishment. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, and Tubner.Google Scholar
  20. Feld, Barry C. 2008. A Slower Form of Death: Implications of Roper v. Simmons for Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 9: 9–65.Google Scholar
  21. Hampton, Jean. 1991. A New Theory of Retribution. In Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Morals, ed. R.G. Frey and C.W. Morris, 377–414. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hampton, Jean. 1992. Correcting Harms Versus Righting Wrongs: The Goal of Retribution. UCLA Law Review 39: 1659–1702.Google Scholar
  23. Hanna, Nathan. 2014. Retributivism Revisited. Philosophical Studies 167: 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegel, G.W.F. 1965. The Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, Jr., T.E. 1999. Kant on Wrongdoing, Desert, and Punishment. Law and Philosophy 18: 407–441.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, Jr., T.E. 2012. Virtue, Rules, and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kagan, Shelly. 1998. Rethinking Intrinsic Value. The Journal of Ethics 2: 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. by J. Paton. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  30. Kant, Immanuel. 1996. The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kleinig, John. 1973. Punishment and Desert. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Korsgaard, Christine M. 1983. Two Distinctions in Goodness. Philosophical Review 92: 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lazarus, Liora. 2004. Contrasting Prisoners’ Rights: A Comparative Examination of England and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lippke, Richard L. 2014. Some Surprising Implications of Negative Retributivism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31: 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore, Michael S. 1993. Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, Michael S. 1997. Placing Blame: A Theory of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Moore, Michael S. 2016. Responses and Appreciations. In Legal, Moral, and Metaphysical Truths: The Philosophy of M. S. Moore, ed. K.K. Ferzan and S.J. Morse, 323–427. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Morris, Herbert. 1976. On Guilt and Innocence: Essays in Legal Philosophy and Moral Psychology Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Morris, Norval. 1974. The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nagin, Daniel S., Frances T. Cullen, and Cheryl Lero Jonson. 2009. Imprisonment and Reoffending. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 38: 115–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connell, Eoin. 2014. Kantian Moral Retributivism: Punishment, Suffering, and the Highest Good. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 52: 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pratt, John, and Anna Eriksson. 2013. Contrasts in Punishment: An Explanation of Anglophone Excess and Nordic Exceptionalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, Paul H., and John M. Darley. 1997. The Utility of Desert. Northwestern University Law Review 91: 453–499.Google Scholar
  44. Sadurski, Wojctech. 1985. Giving Desert Its Due: Social Justice and Legal Theory. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sher, George. 1987. Desert. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Strang, Heather, and Lawrence W. Sherman. 2003. Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative Justice. Utah Law Review 2003: 15–42.Google Scholar
  47. Tadros, Victor. 2011. The Ends of Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. von Hirsch, Andrew. 1993. Censure and Sanctions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  49. von Hirsch, Andrew, and Nils Jareborg. 1991. Gauging Criminal Harm: A Living-Standard Analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 11: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. White, Mark D. 2011. Pro Tanto Retributivism: Judgment and the Balance of Principles in Criminal Justice. In Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, ed. Mark D. White, 129–145. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaibert, Leo. 2006. Punishment and Retribution. Hants, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations