The matter is aggravated to the extent that society prefers to incur these costs rather than those of alternative social interventions with personal liberty that might result in preventing crime in the first place and healing the wounds of its victims Currie Essays in Political Philosophy, Cambridge: And it is arguable that civil proceedings also call defendants to account—that they too invite defendants to offer a denial or plead a defence; that they too use the prospect of legal liability to put defendants under pressure to account adequately Duff a.
Law-makers who make each of these errors will be tempted to create criminal laws that are anything but impeccable—laws designed to suppress activities the value in which has been missed, which do much more harm than their designers anticipated.
It is synonymous with Philosophies of crime fault or moral blameworthiness. If one endorses HPPthings are different. There are, however, constraints in the use of penal threats and coercion even Philosophies of crime preserve a just social system. Whatever the answer, this preventive value is impersonal in two ways: Thus, a most important part of the theory of punishment is the careful articulation of the norms that provide these constraints on the practice and their rationale.
When combined with Cthat argument does not imply that Philosophies of crime should not be criminally responsible for outcomes. Let us take the third objection first. Punitive severity must accord with the relative severity of the crime: Any non-ideal theory must also take account of the errors the latter are disposed to make.
There is a standing risk that law-makers who pursue that goal will deprive us of a criminal law that fulfills its other functions. Nietzsche and Foucault are among those who would dispute this claim, and they may have history on their side. Justifying the practice or institution of punishment must be kept distinct from justifying any given act of punishment.
In some cases, criminalizing a wrong will inevitably result in selective enforcement, raising concerns about selection being made on discriminatory grounds. Is there a defence of necessity because we sometimes do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils? Had the creation of those offences been an unqualified success, there would have been nothing for which to punish anyone.
Even if legal conformity generally improves our moral conformity, there may be exceptional cases in which it does not—in which we can violate the rules of the road without putting anyone in danger, or in which violation helps keep everyone safe. A narrower view has it that we are harmed only if our future prospects are reduced, because we are deprived of valuable abilities or opportunities Raz—; Gardner3—4; Simester and von Hirsch36— Features of Criminal Law The life of the criminal law begins with criminalization.
On both the Kantian and communitarian views this is not the case. Conduct that falls outside the line may not be criminalized come what may. So much for question i. A third possibility is that harms and wrongs provide two independent sources of general justification compare Tadros— It turns out to consist at least in part in the provision of a technique for condemning wrongdoers which does not require that we punish in order to condemn.
The preventive view tells us nothing about the value of preventing crime. If not, W implies that even morally beneficial mala prohibita—like the rules of the road—must ultimately be removed from the criminal law Husak—; Simester and von Hirsch24—29; Wellman Second, this justification requires some accommodation to consequentialist as well as to deontological considerations.
The same is not true of defence elements, like those that make up the defence of duress. Different private punishers are unlikely to punish similarly placed offenders in similar amounts.
Prohibition by law plays an essential role in securing grudging compliance, and the principal vehicle for such prohibition is the punitive sanction attached to violation of the criminal law.
Aside from being an impractical goal, it is morally defective for two reasons: University of Chicago Law School.Philosophy, Crime, and Criminology represents the first systematic attempt to unpack the philosophical foundations of crime in Western culture.
PHILOSOPHIES OF PUNISHMENT Punishment serves numerous social-control functions, but it is usually jus-tiﬁed on the principles of retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilita- crime. Retribution as a penal philosophy has been criticized on several fronts when it is actually applied in practice.
First, strict retributive sanctions. Hoffmann examines why crime literature may provide stronger consolation for readers than philosophy. In so doing, he demonstrates the truth of Wittgenstein's claim that more wisdom is contained in the best crime fiction than in philosophical essays.4/5(1).
Philosophies of Crime Fiction provides a considered analysis of the philosophical ideas to be found in crime literature - both hidden and explicit.
Josef Hoffmann ranges expertly across influences and inspirations in crime writing with a stellar cast including Conan Doyle, G K Chesterton, Dashiell Hammett, Albert Camus, Borges, Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler and Ted Lewis. The Philosophy of Crime. Podcast News.
Connect. Go to mint-body.com mint-body.com Go to Twitter Twitter. Go to Facebook Facebook. Go to Instagram Instagram. Merch. Buy Stuff. Send Message. Zerif Lite developed by ThemeIsle.
Criminal Law and Philosophy aims to publish high quality articles that take a philosophical perspective on any issues in the broad field of crime and punishment.
The main areas and topics include: crime and criminalization; the content, principles and structure of substantive criminal law; criminal justice and the criminal process; punishment and sentencing.Download