Legal Theory 15 (2):67-105 (2009)

Abstract
Retributive restrictions are principles of justice according to which what a criminal deserves on account of his individual conduct and character restricts how states are morally permitted to treat him. The main arguments offered in defense of retributive restrictions involve thought experiments in which the state punishes the innocent, a practice known as telishment. In order to derive retributive restrictions from the wrongness of telishment, one must engage in moral argument from generalization. I show how generalization arguments of the same form can be used subversively to derive morally unacceptable conclusions from other scenarios in which the state intentionally inflicts undeserved coercion. For example, our considered moral convictions approve of punishment policies that inflict collateral damage, such as the ubiquitous policy of excluding the family members of inmates from prison facilities outside visiting hours. I present a generalization argument for the conclusion that these policies are seriously unjust. If we firmly believe that these policies are not unjust, then we should put less stock in generalization arguments. We should not use them to support retributive restrictions. This conclusion has broad implications for the theory and practice of criminal justice.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S1352325209090107
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,043
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Collateral Damage and the Principle of Due Care.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2014 - Journal of Military Ethics 13 (1):94-105.
Collateral Consequences and the Perils of Categorical Ambiguity.Alec C. Ewald - 2011 - In Austin Sarat, Lawrence Douglas & Martha Merrill Umphrey (eds.), Law as Punishment/Law as Regulation. Stanford Law Books.
Is Retributivism Analytic?Igor Primorac - 1981 - Philosophy 56 (216):203 - 211.
The Wrong of Mass Punishment.Hamish Stewart - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (1):45-57.
A Retributive Argument Against Punishment.Greg Roebuck & David Wood - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
Dirty Bombs and Garbage Cases.Christopher Uggen - 2007 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 74:707-711.
Retributive Parsimony.Richard L. Lippke - 2009 - Res Publica 15 (4):377-395.
Dirty Bombs and Garbage Cases.Christopher Uggen - 2007 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 74 (2):707-711.
Peace and Justice: A Limited Reconciliation. [REVIEW]Nigel Biggar - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (2):167-179.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-20

Total views
20 ( #554,839 of 2,498,576 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,098 of 2,498,576 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes