Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T09:47:06.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

The free will skeptic aims to articulate a theory for treatment of criminals that rejects retributivism, since this justification for punishment is inconsistent with the skeptic’s outlook, but nevertheless actually works in the real world. In past versions of such an account I’ve emphasized the quarantine analogy for incapacitation together with the value of rehabilitation and reintegration (Pereboom 2001, 2014), and I’ve endorsed Gregg Caruso’s embedding of the view within a public health model (Caruso 2016, 2017; Pereboom and Caruso 2018). Recently I’ve paid special attention to the permissibility and the limits of special and general deterrence (Pereboom 2017b, 2019). Here I set out this view and develop it in certain key respects in response to the latest objections raised against it.

Type
Chapter
Information
Free Will Skepticism in Law and Society
Challenging Retributive Justice
, pp. 97 - 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

References

Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychology Bulletin, 126, 556574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alicke, M. D., Davis, T. L., and Pezzo, M. V.. (1994). A posteriori adjustment of a priori decision criteria, Social Cognition, 8, 286305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alicke, M. D., Rose, D., and Bloom, D.. (2012). Causation, norm violation and culpable control, Journal of Philosophy, 106, 587612.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1789/1948). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brink, D, and Nelkin, D. (2013). Fairness and the architecture of responsibility. Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, 1, 284313.Google Scholar
Caruso, G. D. (2016). Free will skepticism and criminal behavior: a public health quarantine model. Southwest Philosophy Review, 32(1), 2548.Google Scholar
Caruso, G. D. (2017). Public Health and Safety: The Social Determinants of Health and Criminal Behavior. London: ResearchLinks Books.Google Scholar
Caruso, G. D. (2019). Justice without retribution: An epistemic argument against retributive criminal punishment. Neuroethics. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-018-9357-8.Google Scholar
Corrado, M. L. (1996). Punishment and the wild beast of prey: the problem of preventive detention. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 778, 132.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1984). Elbow Room. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. M. (1985). The justification of general deterrence. The Philosophical Review, 104, 367394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1970). Justice and personal desert. In Feinberg, J., ed., Doing and Deserving, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 5594.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. and Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and Control, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1970). Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hieronymi, P. (2001). Articulating an uncompromising forgiveness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62, 529554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, D. (2012). Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1790). The Metaphysics of Morals. Tr. McGregor, Mary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Kelly, E. (2009). Criminal justice without retribution. Journal of Philosophy, 106, 440462.Google Scholar
McKenna, M. (2012). Conversation and Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, M. S. (1998). Placing Blame. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2013). Common criminal law compatibilism. In Vincent, N. A., ed., Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 2752.Google Scholar
Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: some problems for jury impartiality, Philosophical Explorations, 9, 203220.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. (2018). Duties, desert, and the justification of punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1–14.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2001). Living Without Free Will. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2014). Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2017a). Responsibility, regret, and protest. Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, 4, 121140.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2017b). A defense of free will skepticism: replies to commentaries by Victor Tadros, Saul Smilansky, Michael McKenna, and Alfred R. Mele on Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(3), 617636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2019). Incapacitation, reintegration, and limited general deterrence. Neuroethics. DOI: 10/.1007/s12152–018-9282-7.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D., and Caruso, G. D.. (2018). Hard-incompatibilist existentialism: neuroscience, punishment, and meaning in life. In Caruso, G. D. and Flanagan, O., eds., Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.193222.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review, 64, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (2013). Giving desert its due. Philosophical Explorations, 16, 101116.Google Scholar
Schoeman, F. (1979). On incapacitating the dangerous. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16, 2735.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, D. (2015). Responsibility from the Margins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, D. (2017). Response-dependent responsibility. The Philosophical Review, 126, 481527.Google Scholar
Smilansky, S. (2000). Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smilanksy, S. (2017). Pereboom on punishment: funishment, innocence, motivation, and other difficulties. Criminal Law and Philosophy. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-016-9396-3.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (2013). Moral blame and moral protest. In Tognazzini, N. and Coates, D. J., eds., Blame: Its Nature and Norms. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 2748.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1962). Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 187211.Google Scholar
Tadros, V. (2016). Wrongs and Crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talbert, M. 2012. Moral competence, moral blame, and protest. Journal of Ethics, 16, 89101.Google Scholar
Vargas, M. (2013). Building Better Beings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2009). Free will and reasonable doubt. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46, 131140.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2013). Persons, punishment, and free will skepticism. Philosophical Studies, 162, 143163.Google Scholar
Watson, G. (2014). Peter Strawson on responsibility and sociality. Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, 2, 1533.Google Scholar

References

Caruso, G. D. (2016). Free will skepticism and criminal behavior: A public health-quarantine model. Southwest Philosophical Review, 32(1), 2548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruso, G. D. (2017). Public Health and Safety: The Social Determinants of Health and Criminal Behavior. London, UK: ResearchLinks Books.Google Scholar
Caruso, G. D. (2019). Free will skepticism and its implications: The case for optimism. In Shaw, E., Pereboom, D., and Caruso, G. D., eds., Free Will Skepticism in Law and Society: Challenging Retributivism, ch.3 [this volume]. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dolovich, S. (2004). Legitimate punishment in liberal democracy. Buffalo Law Review, 7(2), 314329.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1975). Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s Theory. The American Political Science Review, 69(2), 594606.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Gregor, M.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, N. (2012). Skepticism and sanction: The benefits of rejecting moral responsibility. Law and Philosophy, 31(5), 477493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without Free Will. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2013). Free will skepticism and criminal punishment. In Nadelhoffer, T., ed., The Future of Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 4978.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2014). Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smilansky, S. (2011). Hard determinism and punishment: A practical reductio. Law and Philosophy, 30(3), 353367.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2009). Free will skepticism and personhood as a desert base. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(3), 489511.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2013). Persons, punishment, and free will skepticism. Philosophical Studies, 162(2), 143163.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2015). Free will and the asymmetrical justifiability of holding morally responsible. Philosophical Quarterly, 65(261), 772789.Google Scholar
Vilhauer, B. (2017). Kant’s mature theory of punishment and a first Critique ideal abolitionist alternative. In Altman, M. C., ed., Palgrave Kant Handbook. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 617642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without Free Will. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2014). Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google 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.Google 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
×