Punishment and Proportionality

Criminal Justice Ethics 33 (3):185-199 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article concerns the problems of proportionality in the theory of punishment. The problem is how to determine whether the severity of a punishment for a criminal offense is proportional to the seriousness of that offense. The resolution to this problem proposed in the article is that, first, one understand punishment as pain or loss intentionally and openly inflicted on someone S in retaliation for something S did, by a person or agent who is at least as powerful as S, and, second, one take such retaliatory pain or loss as, within stable social groups, a means for preserving social order. Accordingly, it is argued that, on this proposal, the measure by which the severity of punishment is determined to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime for which it is inflicted is the minimal amount of pain or loss necessary to preserve social order. Sentencing policies that follow this measure, it is then observed, tend to yield less severe punishments than the policies that classical deterrence theory yields. Finally, the article offers an argument for regarding as morally more defensible sentencing policies whose goal is preserving social order than sentencing policies whose goal is that of classical deterrence theory, which is to achieve the smallest incidence of crimes consistent with not diminishing the overall welfare of society.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,891

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Punishment and Proportionality: Part 2.John Deigh - 2016 - Criminal Justice Ethics 35 (1):21-38.
Consent, punishment, and proportionality.Larry Alexander - 1986 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (2):178-182.
Self-defense, punishment, and proportionality.Larry Alexander - 1991 - Law and Philosophy 10 (3):323 - 328.
Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach.Stephan Kinsella - 1996 - Journal of Libertarian Studies 12 (1):51-73.
Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach.N. Kinsella - 1996 - Journal of Libertarian Studies 12 (1):51-73.
Proportionality, Constraint, and Culpability.Mitchell N. Berman - 2021 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):373-391.
Against Proportional Punishment.Adam Kolber - 2013 - Vanderbilt Law Review 66:1141.
A Retributive Argument Against Punishment.Greg Roebuck & David Wood - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
Proportionality’s Lower Bound.James Manwaring - 2021 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):393-405.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-02

Downloads
58 (#269,537)

6 months
8 (#506,022)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Deigh
University of Texas at Austin

Citations of this work

The Emotional Significance of Punishment.John Deigh - 2016 - Emotion Review 8 (1):56-61.
Punishment and Proportionality: Part 2.John Deigh - 2016 - Criminal Justice Ethics 35 (1):21-38.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A Theory of Justice.John Rawls - 1971 - Oxford,: Harvard University Press. Edited by Steven M. Cahn.
Leviathan.Thomas Hobbes - 1904 - Harmondsworth,: Penguin Books. Edited by C. B. Macpherson.
Freedom and Resentment.Peter Strawson - 1962 - Proceedings of the British Academy 48:187-211.

View all 18 references / Add more references