Punishment in environmental protection

Journal of Business Ethics 15 (10):1071 - 1081 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The fundamental character of a punishment is the subject of this paper. Based on the assumed function of a punishment (deterrent), a punishment has to be perceived and experienced to be an adverse result by the punished and the public. The first factor in particular means that the courts have to have flexibility to sentence a person to such a punishment that is experienced as such. The legal question becomes how this customization of a punishment is acceptable from an equality standpoint. In the field of environmental protection, the administrative process poses serious problems. There may be administrative proceedings that result in substantial economic losses for individuals and groups alike.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

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: The future.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):483-491.
The Rationale of Punishment.Jeremy Bentham - 2009 - Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Edited by James T. McHugh.
Punishment: Consequentialism.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
Making sense of retributivism.J. Angelo Corlett - 2001 - Philosophy 76 (1):77-110.
A deterrence theory of punishment.Anthony Ellis - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):337–351.
Quinn on punishment and using persons as means.Michael Otsuka - 1996 - Law and Philosophy 15 (2):201 - 208.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
37 (#409,683)

6 months
8 (#292,366)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Collective punishment and public policy.J. Angelo Corlett - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (3):207 - 216.

Add more references