Abstract

This book is a brilliant and painstaking analysis, at once historical and systematic, of Plato's penology. The initial sinking of a philosopher's heart at the sight of philosophy done by a classicist is soon stopped and even reversed. For Mackenzie immediately displays a mastery of the philosophical issues involved in a critique of penal institutions. The book opens with five chapters that clearly set forth the basic incongruity: experience shows that penal institutions are inevitable in human societies, and yet punishment--because it does harm to the punished-needs to be justified. But the major philosophical theories fail in that justification: retribution, deterrence, and reform are finally incompatible with each other, and yet none can stand alone without doing violence to the intuitions of common sense. Plato's theory, then--basically reformative, with a touch of deterrence--is finally unsatisfactory. As the author says in her introduction, "different theories of punishment cannot be held conjointly because they conflict. But they cannot be held separately, either, or they risk being violent or unintelligible. Violence is what theories of punishment guard against, and if a theory is incomprehensible, it is no theory at all". Plato's theory is then said to fail by being incomprehensible.