No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Response to the Comments of Igor Primoratz
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
Extract
1) Just so soon as I was asked to send in a final, revised version of my “Retrospect and Prospect, Retribution and Deterrence” for eventual publication, it became obvious to me that all the alterations or additions which I wanted to make were alterations or additions in response to the “Comments” by Igor Primoratz. But, if I were to make the changes which I now believe to be necessary, in that original paper, then those Comments would be left in the air — apparently provoked by nothing at all. So instead I present my afterthoughts here, appropriately, as what they are, Responses to his Comments.
First, and urgently, we need to introduce a distinction between justifying (in general) and justicizing (in particular).
- Type
- Theories of Punishment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1991
References
1 In this issue, at p. 376.
2 In this issue, at p. 388.
3 Frankena, W., “The Concept of Social Justice”, in Daniels, N., ed., Reading Rawls (Oxford, Blackwell, 1975) 16Google Scholar, previously in Brandt, R. B., ed., Social Justice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1965)Google Scholar.
4 Honderich, Ted, Punishment: The Supposed Justifications (London, Hutchinson, 1969)Google Scholar.
5 Primoratz, supra n. 2, at 395.
6 After a Conference in which so many speakers insisted upon the feminization of crime, how can we refuse similarly to feminize retribution?