Relevant bibliographies by topics / Retributivism / Books

Books on the topic 'Retributivism'

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Retributivism.
Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 25 April 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 27 books for your research on the topic 'Retributivism.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse books on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

White, Mark D. Retributivism: Essays on theory and policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Retributivism has a past: Has it a future? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

International Society for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Canadian Section. Special Nordic Conference. Retributivism and its critics: Papers of the special Nordic conference held at the University of Toronto, 25-27 June 1990. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Lodigiani, Felice. Sistemi retributivi e contabilità delle paghe. 4th ed. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1992.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Santi, Paolo. Sindacato, differenziali retributivi, riformismo: Paolo Santi, scritti e testimonianze. Milano: F. Angeli, 2002.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Donati, Amedeo. Prontuario del lavoro: Tabelle dei trattamenti retributivi, normativi, previdenziali e fiscali del lavoro subordinato. Milano: Il sole 24 ore, professione impresa, 1991.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Valvo, Tino. Retribuzioni a confronto: Indagine empirica sulle strutture e sui differenziali retributivi, condotta nell'area torinese. Milano, Italy: F. Angeli, 1986.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Manicastri, Maurizio. Il part-time: Aspetti normativi, retributivi e previdenziali della prestazione di lavoro a tempo parziale. 4th ed. Roma: Buffetti, 1988.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Colle, Enrico Del. La disuguaglianza retributiva: Analisi statistico-economica dei trattamenti retributivi in Italia e riflessi sullo Stato sociale. Milano, Italy: F. Angeli, 1998.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Retributivism & Its Critics (Arsp Beiheft,). Coronet Books, 1991.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
11

Ryberg, Jesper. Retributivism, Multiple Offending, and Overall Proportionality. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190607609.003.0002.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter examines the retributivist approach to the sentencing of multiple offenders, with particular emphasis on the argument that retributive justice implies overall proportionality constraints—that is, proportionality prescriptions with regard to classes of offenses. It first presents a few initial conceptual considerations concerning the notion of overall proportionality and its implications in multiple-offense cases before discussing possible ways of justifying overall proportionality. It then explores the role that harm and culpability play in the determination of the seriousness of a crime and goes on to explain Chris Bennett’s theory of interpersonal assessment of wrongdoing. It also challenges the alleged underlying intuition in favor of overall proportionality and contends that the idea of overall proportionality as an ingredient in the retributivist approach to multiple offending does not stand on firm ground.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
12

Bennett, Christopher. Retributivism and Totality Can Bulk Discounts for Multiple Offending Fit the Crime? Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190607609.003.0004.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter examines how multiple offenders seem to pose a problem for broadly retributive principles of sentencing, focusing on the proper place and exercise of discretion to show why such problems are only apparent. It begins with a discussion of the issue of multiple offending and the discretion it seems to give sentencers as well as the bulk-discount principle that appears to guide decisions. It then considers two ways in which bulk discounts may appear to conflict with retributive sentencing theory, the fittingness problem and the selection problem. It also analyzes the key guiding thought within retributive approaches to criminal justice and distinguishes between two types of retributivism, moralistic and legalistic. The chapter concludes with the argument that retributivism is compatible with common approaches to multiple-offense sentencing.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
13

Hoskins, Zachary. Multiple-Offense Sentencing Discounts. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190607609.003.0005.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter examines one intuitively appealing legal practice for which retributivist accounts struggle to find justification: multiple-offense sentencing discounts. It also considers several proposed strategies for justifying bulk discounts on the basis of retributivism. Three strategies are discussed: those that appeal to an absolute punishment maximum, those that appeal to interpersonal practices of blame and making amends, and those that suggest that perpetrators of multiple offenses sometimes have reduced culpability. The chapter argues that each of these strategies either is implausible as a ground for bulk-sentencing discounts or is plausible only insofar as it incorporates nonretributivist considerations into its account—thus is in fact a hybrid view. It concludes by looking at hybrid theories as an alternative, suggesting that such approaches not only can provide justification for bulk-sentencing discounts, but are also more plausible in general than is generally assumed.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
14

Kim, Sungmoon. State Coercion and Criminal Punishment. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190671235.003.0005.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter proposes a novel normative framework for criminal punishment, called the value theory of criminal punishment, as an alternative to desert-based retributivism. Contrary to retributivists who see criminal desert as pre-social and purely individualistic, the value theory understands it as embedded in communal values and social norms, and thus sees crime not in virtue of its pre-socially evaluated wrongness but in terms of a “normative blow” to the political community undergirded by such values and norms. In the Confucian society in particular, a normative blow to the community complexly implicates both the wrongdoer and the victim, as they are thought to exist not as independent rights-bearing individuals but as quasi-family members of the community. The chapter then singles out family crimes as the gravest moral violation in a Confucian society and justifies enhanced punishment for them from the perspective of the Confucian value theory.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
15

Dagger, Richard. Justifying Punishment. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199388837.003.0006.

Full text
Abstract:
Chapter 5 is the first of the three chapters of Playing Fair that make the case for fair play as the basis for a compelling justification of legal punishment. As it was with the discussion of political obligation, so it is necessary to begin this part of the book by clarifying key terms and confronting fundamental challenges to the enterprise of justifying punishment itself. The chapter thus begins with the questions of what is punishment and what are its proper aims. The latter question is usually answered by reference to retributivism and/or deterrence, and I try to place fair-play theory in this context by linking it to communicative theories of punishment while distinguishing it from Jean Hampton’s expressive version of retributivism. The chapter concludes with responses to those who would, for various reasons, abolish punishment altogether.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
16

Tonry, Michael, ed. Of One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190070595.001.0001.

Full text
Abstract:
Interest in retributive theory, and emphasis on proportionality between crime and punishment as a requirement of justice, revived in English-speaking countries in the 1970s. After less than a half century, however, retributivism’s influence is waning. It is beset by challenges. Some, such as difficulties in scaling crime seriousness and punishment severity, and linking them, are primarily analytical and of interest mostly to theorists. Others, such as trade-offs between proportionality and crime prevention, relate to real-world applications. Both sets of challenges can be explored in their own terms, and solutions can be sought. The bigger question, though, is whether the challenges are epiphenomenal and portend displacement of retribution as the most intellectually influential normative frame of reference for thinking about punishment. Only time will tell whether retributivism is in terminal decline. Most likely, the difficulties contemporary philosophers face are as much a reflection of a change in the zeitgeist, in prevailing sensibilities, in mentalités as of sudden realization that retributive ideas offer less guidance for thinking about punishment than was widely understood.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
17

Jacobs, Jonathan A. The Liberal State and Criminal Sanction. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190863623.001.0001.

Full text
Abstract:
Current forms of incarceration in the U.S. and U.K. are morally problematic in ways that are antithetical to the values and principles of liberal democracy. While indicating those morally problematic features the book defends the basic political and legal culture of the U.S. and U.K. A significant remaking of the political order is not needed for the required reforms of incarceration to be made. Greater faithfulness to the values and principles of liberal democracy could be adequate for such reforms. It is crucial to make those reforms because of the ways prisoners are currently being harmed, rendering many of them incapable of reintegrating successfully into civil society. The liberal order makes a dynamic, pluralistic civil society possible, and participating in civil society gives people a reason to value the liberal order. That relation is weakened by penal practices that diminish the agential capacities of offenders and fail to respect them as members of society. The book explores the relation between criminal justice and justice more comprehensively understood, highlighting the distinctive elements of criminal justice. It explains the role of desert in criminal justice and why criminal justice needs to be distinguished from distributive justice. Criminal justice includes a retributivist conception of punishment, one in which desert, proportionality, and parsimony are centrally important. A retributivist conception of punishment most effectively respects the voluntariness and accountability of agents in ways well suited to a liberal political order. The account examines misinterpretations of retributivism and highlights weaknesses of consequentialist approaches to sanction.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
18

Ryberg, Jesper. Neuroscientific Treatment of Criminals and Penal Theory. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198758617.003.0010.

Full text
Abstract:
Does the implementation of treatment schemes as an integrated element in the sentencing of offenders violate a retributivist view of punishment? Traditional rehabilitationism has often been held to conflict with retributive justice. However, in this chapter it is argued that: 1) treatment schemes can be designed in a way that is fully consistent with retributive proportionality constraints; 2) treatment schemes cannot plausibly be rejected by retributivists as a type of punishment that should be banned in principle; 3) there may be circumstances under which the retributivist should accept treatment schemes even if criminals are being disproportionately punished.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
19

Fassin, Didier. Why Does One Punish? Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190888589.003.0004.

Full text
Abstract:
Why do we punish? Two major justifications are generally provided. Utilitarianism aims at promoting social welfare by reducing crime. Retributivism seeks to inflict a pain equivalent to the offense committed. Empirical observations conducted in the street with the police, in court with judges, and in prison at disciplinary boards establish that there are many more actual reasons why punishment is inflicted on a person. However, these multiple rationales do not exhaust the explanation. As we are reminded by Nietzsche, there is a form of collective or individual pleasure in the act of punishing, which can account for ordinary as well as extraordinary forms of cruelty.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
20

Lippke, Richard L. Parsimony and the Sentencing of Multiple Offenders. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190607609.003.0006.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter examines the principle of parsimony (PP) as it applies to the sentencing of multiple offenders. It first explains what the PP means and challenges its basic assumptions as an independent, substantive sentencing principle. It then recasts the PP as a second-order principle, that is, as a principle designed to help us better ensure that the traditional aims of sentencing are more fully realized. It also distinguishes crime reduction and retributivism versions of the PP as a second-order principle and considers how they might be integrated into a mixed theory of sentencing. Finally, it explores whether and to what extent the PP as a second-order principle is useful in thinking about multiple-offense sentencing. It argues that the PP might play a role in determining sentence ranges for crime types, as well as in formulating broader penal and social policies.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
21

Roberts, Julian V., and Jan W. de Keijser. Sentencing the Multiple-Conviction Offender. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190607609.003.0008.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter focuses on the punishment of offenders sentenced for multiple offenses that have not been separated by independent prosecution and sentencing. Most scholars believe that the striking discrepancy between sentences imposed on multiple and repeat offenders cannot be justified in terms of retributivism. The existing solutions to the overpunishment of offenders convicted of multiple crimes invoke concurrent sentencing or the exercise of mercy by a sentencing court. Both approaches mitigate excessive punishment, but also create a number of problems. This chapter first considers the nature of the problem and the deficiencies of current approaches to multiple-offense sentencing before explaining how much of the gap between the repeat and the multiple offenders’ sentences can be accommodated within a retributive framework. It also describes culpability and harm as independent elements of deservedness and argues in favor of reduced sentences when the offenses are related to one another.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
22

Wesley, Cragg, and International Society for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Canadian Section., eds. Retributivism and its critics: Canadian Section of the International Society for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (CS, IVR) : papers of the special Nordic conference held at the University of Toronto, 25-27 June 1990. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
23

Edwards, James. An Instrumental Legal Moralism. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0005.

Full text
Abstract:
Many writers defend or attack the position nowadays known as legal moralism. According to the most common formulation, legal moralists endorse the following thesis: the fact that φ‎ing is morally wrong is a reason to criminalize φ‎ing. This chapter considers a different kind of legal moralism, here called instrumental legal moralism (ILM). According to ILM: the fact that criminalizing φ‎ing will probably prevent moral wrongs is a reason to criminalize φ‎ing. Section I draws some relevant distinctions. In doing so, it clarifies the difference between ILM and the act-centred legal moralism (ALM) commonly discussed in the literature. Sections II–IV consider two prominent arguments for ALM: the retributivist argument, offered by Michael Moore, and the answerability argument, offered by Antony Duff. The chapter shows that, contrary to the intentions of these authors, both arguments in fact support ILM.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
24

Rushdy, Ashraf H. A. Forgiving Retribution. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190851972.003.0004.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter examines the intricate relationship between forgiveness and retribution as philosophies and practices. It traces different conceptions of that relationship—from those who argue that forgiveness and retribution are evolutionary inheritances, or Biblical injunctions, or deontological imperatives—in order to give a wider and more capacious context to modern philosophical debates about conflicts and possible resolutions between the desire and duty to forgive and to punish. It looks at the debate between philosophers who believe in retribution—retributivists, who believe that whatever is expressed without a sign and expression of sincere repentance is not forgiveness but something else—and those who believe in unconditional forgiveness—unconditionalists, who believe that forgiveness must be unconditional and therefore cannot require an expression of repentance—to show what kind of morality each positions entails.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
25

O'Donnell, Ian. For and Against Clemency. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198798477.003.0003.

Full text
Abstract:
Clemency tends to make philosophers of punishment uncomfortable, whatever their predilections. For retributivists it is problematic because it threatens equality of treatment and introduces disproportionality. For utilitarians it is problematic because it involves a departure from what would best serve society. A mandatory sentence for murder moves the locus of clemency to the executive. This chapter examines the arguments for and against executive clemency. The views of Kant and Beccaria are canvassed. Unlike the rest of the book, the analysis here has no particular jurisdictional anchor. Like the rest of the book, the issues of concern are apposite beyond the context in which they are raised. Having reviewed competing claims as to the desirability and necessity of clemency, the suitability to the task at hand of the proposed tripartite scheme—which argues that clemency can be understood in terms of justice, mercy (differentiated from ‘pseudo mercy’), or caprice—is clarified.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
26

Villa, Ester. La responsibilità solidale come tecnica di tutela del lavoratore. Bononia University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.30682/sg287.

Full text
Abstract:
Nel presente studio si indagano anzitutto natura, fondamento e disciplina della responsabilità solidale posta a tutela dei crediti retributivi e contributivi dei lavoratori impiegati negli appalti e nei subappalti. La corresponsabilizzazione del soggetto diverso dal datore di lavoro è giustificata non solo per il fatto oggettivo della stipulazione di un contratto d’appalto, ma anche per l’indiretta utilità che quest’ultimo trae dalle prestazioni dei dipendenti altrui. Ci si sofferma poi sulle altre forme di responsabilità solidale dell’“ordinamento lavoristico”, ovvero quella prevista in presenza di un trasporto merci, di una somministrazione di lavoro, di un’assunzione congiunta in agricoltura e della codatorialità, per dimostrare che le stesse danno vita ad un sistema di responsabilità solidali, in quanto si pongono in uno specifico rapporto l’una con l’altra. La configurabilità di un “sistema”, valutata insieme ad altri elementi, permette di considerare le regole dettate per le diverse “fattispecie” – appalto, somministrazione, assunzioni congiunte e codatorialità – alla stregua di norme generali applicabili in tutti i casi in cui la gestione dei rapporti di lavoro si svolga in forme analoghe.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
27

Yost, Benjamin S. Against Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190901165.001.0001.

Full text
Abstract:
Against Capital Punishment offers an innovative proceduralist argument against the death penalty. Worries about procedural injustice animate many popular and scholarly objections to capital punishment. Philosophers and legal theorists are attracted to procedural abolitionism because it sidesteps controversies over whether murderers deserve death, holding out a promise of gaining rational purchase among death penalty retentionists. Following in this path, the book remains agnostic on the substantive immorality of execution; in fact, it takes pains to reconstruct the best arguments for capital punishment and presumes the appropriateness of execution in limited cases. At the same time, the book contends that the possibility of irrevocable mistakes precludes the just administration of the death penalty. The heart of Against Capital Punishment is a philosophical defense of the well-known irrevocability argument, which analyzes the argument’s premises, establishes their validity, and vindicates them against objections. The central claim is that execution violates the principle of remedy, which requires legal institutions to remedy their mistakes and to compensate those who suffer from wrongful sanctions. The death penalty is repellent to the principle of remedy by dint of its irrevocability. The incompatibility of remedy and execution is the crux of the irrevocability argument: because the wrongly executed cannot enjoy the obligatory remedial measures, execution is impermissible. Against Capital Punishment also reveals itself to be free from two serious defects plaguing other versions of proceduralism: the retributivist challenge and the problem of controversial consequences.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the bibliographies on the topic 'Retributivism' for other source types:
Journal articles Dissertations / Theses
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography