Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-96qlp Total loading time: 0.479 Render date: 2022-12-04T16:47:20.715Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Chapter 7 - Free Will Skepticism, General Deterrence, and the “Use” Objection

from Part II - Alternatives to Retributive Punishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2019

Elizabeth Shaw
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Derk Pereboom
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Gregg D. Caruso
Affiliation:
Corning Community College, State University of New York
Get access

Summary

This chapter defends the view that free will skeptics can endorse general deterrence as a justifiable aim of legal punishment. It does not claim that it is the justifiable aim, or the main aim, but rather that it is a justifiable aim among others. It takes as its target Derk Pereboom’s claim that general deterrence is not a justifiable aim of punishment since it suffers from the “use” objection, according to which general deterrence is wrong because it involves harming some, without their consent, in order to benefit others. The author responds by arguing that the use objection myopically focuses on only one aspect of a system of general deterrent punishment, and that, when we take full account of the complexity of this sort of punishment within a reasonably just legal system, we can see that it need not involve an impermissible kind of use. It further argues that Pereboom’s positive account of how to respond to crime is insufficient for good social policy. It concludes by offering a sketch of an account that combines the measures that Pereboom advocates with others designed to promote general deterrence.

Type
Chapter
Information
Free Will Skepticism in Law and Society
Challenging Retributive Justice
, pp. 139 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bentham, J. (1907). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1994). The expressive function of punishment. In Duff, A. and Garland, D., eds., A Reader on Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 7191.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, C., and Katz, L.. (2008). Contrived defenses and deterrent threats: Two facets of one problem. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5(2), 479504.Google Scholar
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Prolegomenon to the principles of punishment. In Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawken, A., and Kleiman, M.. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf.
Hoskins, Z. (2011). Deterrent punishment and respect for persons. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 8, 369.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Gregor, M.. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, H. J. (1972). A non-utilitarian approach to punishment. In Ezorsky, G., ed., Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 119134.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without Free Will. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2014). Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten, C. L. (1987). Crime, Guilt, and Punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. (1994). Proportionality, parsimony, and interchangeability of punishments. In Duff, A. and Garland, D., eds., A Reader on Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 217237.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2013). Persons, punishment, and free will skepticism. Philosophical Studies, 162(2), 143163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, B. N. (2015). The Stubborn System of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×