Advertisement

The Problem of Punishment

  • Whitley R. P. Kaufman
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 104)

Abstract

This chapter sets out the problem of punishment. Punishment involves inflicting massive harm (loss of life, freedom, etc.) on many millions of people, yet we have no clear idea whether the practice is morally justified. Indeed, we have no clear idea as to the very purpose of punishment: do we punish to prevent crime? Or to give the criminal his “just deserts”? Or some combination of these two? Or something else? It is simply extraordinary that we continue to inflict these tremendous harms on people without even having a clear idea of why we are doing it. Even worse, the two leading theories of punishment (deterrence and retribution) are themselves morally problematic. Deterrence, a theory based on the utilitarian moral theory, is flatly inconsistent with basic moral principles in that it permits harming people as a means to a greater good. But retribution seems no better, for it seems to be gratuitous, pointless harm inflicted after the crime is already finished, and hence seems morally incomprehensible. The moral situation is so bad that a growing movement called Abolitionism has begun to call for the elimination of punishment, on moral grounds. It is the aim of this book to provide a new defense of the retributive theory that is consistent with moral principles.

Keywords

Criminal Justice Death Penalty Crime Prevention Criminal Punishment Moral Justification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, Francis. 1981. The decline of the rehabilitative ideal. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boonin, David. 2008. The problem of punishment. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corlett, J.Angelo. 2006. Responsibility and punishment, 3rd ed. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, Angela. 2003. Are prisons obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dolinko, David. 1992. Three mistakes of retributivism. UCLA Law Review 39: 1623–1657.Google Scholar
  6. Fletcher, George. 1999. The place of victims in the theory of retribution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 3: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  8. Golash, Deirdre. 2005. The case against punishment. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goldman, Alvin. 1994. The paradox of punishent. In Punishment, ed. John Simmons et al., 30–46. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kauffman, Walter. 1975. Without guilt and justice. New York: Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Mackie, J.L. 1982. Morality and the retributive emotions. Criminal Justice Ethics 1(1): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mackie, J.L. 2000. Retributivism: A test case for ethical objectivity. In Philosophy of law, 6th ed, ed. Joel Feinberg and Jules Coleman. Belmont: Wordsworth.Google Scholar
  13. McConville, Sean. 1998. The Victorian prison. In The Oxford history of the prison, ed. Norval Morris and David Rothman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nowak, Martin. 2011. SuperCooperators. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Robinson, Paul, and Michael Cahill. 2006. Law without justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Zimring, Franklin, and Gordon Hawkins. 1995. Incapacitation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Whitley R. P. Kaufman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA

Personalised recommendations