Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Retributivism'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Retributivism.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 22 dissertations / theses 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 dissertations / theses on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Martin, Robert Edward. "Retribution, proportionality and retributivism." Thesis, University College London (University of London), 1998. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.298806.
Full text
2
Flohil, Jill Caroline. "Retributivism, functionalism, annulment and why consequences do and should matter." Thesis, National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 1997. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22826.pdf.
Full text
3
Perkins, Joanna. "Justification and responsibility in private law." Thesis, University of Oxford, 1999. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.312714.
Full text
4
Johnson, Amanda Jane. "An Ideal Justification of Punishment." University of Sydney, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1937.
Full textAbstract:
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)Legal punishment is frequently regarded as a cornerstone of both the legal system and of society more broadly yet (surely to its detriment) it is a practice which lacks a firm philosophical foundation. In spite of exercising many extremely capable legal and philosophical minds (particularly during the twentieth century) no generally agreed upon justification of punishment has been found. The nub of the problem has however been acknowledged as the inability of either of the major candidate theories (utilitarianism or retributivism) to provide an account able to address all the relevant parties. Whilst utilitarianism is often regarded as competent to the task of justifying punishment to society in terms of the attainment of some greater good, it seems entirely inadequate when it comes to formulating a justification to the criminal to explain why he has been singled out for punishment. And in the case of retributivism the situation is reversed. To the criminal it can be put that through punishment he is treated in accordance with what has done, but in the matter of justifying punishment to society, the key principle of desert is unable to be properly grounded. Thus the central motivation of this thesis is to attempt to redress this shortcoming in the philosophical literature and to formulate a viable justification of legal punishment. Ultimately it will be argued that the accounts of both Kant and Hegel offer a way of resolving the dilemma of punishment, and in particular their idealist orientation over and above their more widely acknowledged characterization as retributivists. In Kant’s case his contribution is derived from a reworked and more sophisticated version of his retributivism than is generally found in the literature, inspired by the work of Susan Meld Shell. Following Shell’s lead Kant’s construction of justice is explored and found to both enhance and support the traditional justification of punishment he can offer to the criminal, and to furnish an otherwise elusive justification of punishment to society more broadly. A reading of Hegel on punishment is also developed by taking seriously his theory of recognition and aspects of his logic, particularly regarding negation and contradiction. His account then addresses quite neatly and straightforwardly the three audiences for whom a justification of punishment is sought – the criminal, the victim and society itself. Not only does the thesis address the problem of punishment but it has further implications for Kant and Hegel scholarship as well as philosophy more broadly. One of the key points to come out of this thesis is that Kant and Hegel (if given adequate intellectual consideration) seem potentially able to offer up significant contributions to contemporary problems and issues beyond just the one argued for here regarding punishment. Their work is not merely of historical interest but has real and wide ranging possibilities which provide a rich resource for future research.
5
Parsley, Stephen. "Rethinking Legal Retribution." Digital Archive @ GSU, 2011. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/98.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I discuss retributivist justifications for legal punishment. I argue that the main moral retributivist theories advanced so far fail to support a plausible system of legal punishment. As an alternative, I suggest, with some reservations, the legal retributivism advanced by Alan Brudner in his Punishment and Freedom.
6
Södermark, Philip. "Angående obarmhärtiga samariter och vad som bör göras åt dem : En idékritik av obarmhärtig samarit-lagar." Thesis, Umeå universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-179889.
Full textAbstract:
What ought to be criminalized? There are many different answers to this question and the justifications vary widely. There are some things that most people seem to be able to agree onbut the opposite is very much true of other behaviors, examples that spring to mind are drugs, prostitution and gambling. The subject matter of this analysis falls square in the latter category. Bad samaritan laws prohibit individuals from refraining to rescue others in peril aslong as the risk to their own safety is minimal. Many countries in the world have passed such laws and yet they remain fiercely contested. At a glance this might seem odd: isn’t it a moral imperative to come to the aid of others who need our help, especially when there is little at stake for ourselves? Few actually contest this principle but there is a big leap from immorality to criminalization. Certain bad behaviors should be of no concern to the state but there are difficulties in deciding what kinds of immoral behavior should be subject to criminalization. This analysis is an attempt to determine whether bad samaritanism is the kind of wrong that merits state punishment. An ideational critique where a variety of arguments from the literature are surveyed, these arguments are then tested against the normative criteria of two theories of punishment: consequentialism and retributivism. Although there is some merit to bad samaritan laws, the author concludes that both traditions should reject them.
7
Chehata, Hanan. "A penological critique of Christian and Islamic justifications of capital punishment." Thesis, Brunel University, 2006. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/5162.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis provides a critique of the penology of capital punishment from the perspectives of Christianity and Islam. In order to ascertain the basic theological approaches of both religions towards capital punishment, Chapters 2 and 3 examine the core Scriptural texts, laws and traditions of both Christianity and Islam respectively. These chapters reveal how different methods of Scriptural interpretation and differences in religious practice, within each faith, have led to divergent opinions regarding the legitimacy and acceptability of capital punishment. Chapters 4 and 5 examine two of the primary penological justifications for the death penalty; retributivism and deterrence. It is demonstrated how they can be used, within secular and religious frameworks, to both condemn and condone the use of the punishment. Chapter 6 considers a variety of contemporary methods used to execute offenders and asks whether the methods used have any effect on the religious acceptance or rejection of the penalty. Finally, Chapter 7 presents one of the most controversial aspects of the contemporary death penalty debate, namely the unequal application of the penalty as it pertains particularly to black offenders, indigent offenders and mentally ill offenders. This serious criticism of the death penalty is considered first in general secular terms and then in light of the teachings of both religions and it is asked how the religious arguments in favour of the death penalty stand in light of such serious violations of human rights and justice. The thesis concludes with the assertion that, while a strong case can be made from within both religions for the use of capital punishment in principle, in practice given current practices of criminal justice systems worldwide there is a strong case to be made, if not for abolition, then at least for a drastic curtailment of the practice and a long-term moratorium on capital punishment on religious grounds.
8
Thomson, Cameron Matthew. "Morality, id est, worthiness to be happy : Kant's retributivism, the 'law' of unhappiness, and the eschatological reach of Kant's 'law of punishment'." Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/8131.
Full textAbstract:
Throughout his work, Kant regularly glosses ‘morality’ (and cognate expressions) as ‘worthiness to be happy’ (Würdigkeit glücklich zu sein). As a rule, Kant’s commentators do not find this remarkable. Correctly understood, however, Kant’s gloss on ‘morality’ is remarkable indeed. This thesis shows why. In it, I argue that whenever we encounter Kant’s gloss, we are faced with an implicit, durable cluster of unjustified commitments; that these commitments both antedate and survive his ‘critical period’; that they are fundamentally practical in nature (i.e., that they are unexamined commitments to particular practices); and that these commitments entail a number of problematic theological consequences. I argue, in particular, that Kant’s gloss is a habit that signals, obscurely and implicitly, his antecedent commitments to the practice of capital punishment, on the one hand, and to a particular set of practical attitudes towards the happiness and unhappiness of immoral agents, on the other. I show that this habit has key implications for Kant’s thinking about the agent that he calls ‘God.’ My point of departure is Kant’s claim, in his Religion, that the human being’s particular deeds are imputable to her ‘all the way down,’ only on condition that the underlying ‘disposition’ (Gesinnung) from which they arise (according to their kind, qua moral or immoral) is imputable to her as well—that is, only if her (im)moral character may be regarded as the upshot of, or in some sense identical to, an utterly unassisted, unmotivated, originary deed on her part. I argue that Kant evades the question whether we really are permitted, without further ado, to regard this disposition (and with it an agent’s deeds) as so imputable. He simply affirms his commitment to the practice of imputing particular deeds to particular agents and, with this affirmation, affirms that he takes the warrant that it requires (the imputability of ‘Gesinnung’) to be secure. I argue, then, that the theoretical significance of imputation, as expressed in this extraordinary, evasive leap, supervenes on the urgency of the commitments that are expressed in Kant’s habitual glossing of ‘morality’ as ‘worthiness to be happy.’ The practice for which we would lack a warrant if the human being’s character were not imputable to her is the imputation of her deeds under a description (of imputation) that has immediate reference to this same ‘one’s’ punishment—specifically and only, however, to the extent that Kant takes punishments to be justifiable in none but strictly retributivist terms. These stakes and the constraining role of Kant’s habitual gloss are clearest, I argue, in his thinking about the practice of putting murderers to death—a practice, I argue, that has both a political and an eschatological significance for him.
9
Agrawal, Devika. "The Impulse to Punish: A Critique of Retributive Justice." Scholarship @ Claremont, 2015. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/635.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis explores the strength of the two major theories of punishment, consequentialism and retributivism. It also explores the two most critiqued systems of punishment in the world: The U.S and Norway. By presenting the idea that retributivism is the only plausible theory that can morally justify the U.S. penal practises, I argue against the theory by incorporating various objections delivered by Antony Duff, Michael Zimmerman, and Jeffrie Murphy. I then explore the question of what could possibly ground the Norwegian justice system, for the answer to this is crucial, if we hope to demand prison reform and tailor our systems to resemble the Norwegian ideal. To answer this question, I present a theory that incorporates the ‘capabilities approach’ as developed by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, arguing that the Norwegian prison system is grounded in a hybrid theory of consequentialism that aims to enhance our human rights.
10
Landon, Matt. "Conceptions of Justice: A Sampling of Student Perspectives." Honors in the Major Thesis, University of Central Florida, 2014. http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ETH/id/1611.
Full textAbstract:
Although the literature in the field of criminal justice and philosophy is full of ideas of what constitutes "justice," little to nothing has been done to see where the average individual's opinion falls in relation to these ideas. This paper analyzes a cross-sectional convenience sample of students at UCF to determine their preference of six models of justice: utilitarianism, contractarianism, fairness, retributivism, moralism, and libertarianism. Correlating demographic factors are also discussed.B.A.
Bachelors
Sociology
Sciences
11
Hawkes, Jonathan. "Challenging retributivist intuitions." Thesis, Rhodes University, 2009. http://eprints.ru.ac.za/1635/.
Full text
12
Adams, Joseph Q. "Retribution Requires Rehabilitation." Digital Archive @ GSU, 2008. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/35.
Full textAbstract:
Herbert Morris argues in his influential retributivist paper, "Persons and Punishment," that criminals deserve punishment because their actions represent an unfair distribution of benefits and burdens in society. The proper distribution of benefits and burdens is important, in part, to restore law abiding citizens’ confidence that others will follow the law. In this paper I show that Morris's argument for why criminals deserve punishment morally requires us to set up an institution of rehabilitation in addition to the institution of punishment. Such an institution is morally required because neither pure punishment systems nor punishment systems that incorporate quasi-rehabilitative aspects have ever worked to uphold the necessary confidence that Morris tells us law abiding citizens must have in order to protect the social order. Moreover, we cannot abandon Morris's appeal to the duty to maintain social order without also abandoning a plausibly Morrisian framework.
13
Bülow, William. "Ethics of Imprisonment : Essays in Criminal Justice Ethics." Licentiate thesis, KTH, Filosofi, 2014. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-145357.
Full textAbstract:
This licentiate thesis consists of three essays which all concern the ethics of imprisonment and what constitutes an ethically defensible treatment of criminal offenders. Paper 1 defends the claim that prisoners have a right to privacy. I argue that the right to privacy is important because of its connection to moral agency. For that reasons is the protection of inmates’ right to privacy also warranted by different established philosophical theories about the justification of legal punishment. I discuss the practical implications of this argument. Ultimately I argue the invasion of privacy should be minimized to the greatest extent possible without compromising other important values and rights to safety and security. In defending this position, I argue that respect for inmates’ privacy should be part of the objective of creating and upholding a secure environment to better effect in the long run. Paper 2 discusses whether the collateral harm of imprisonment to the close family members and children of prison inmates may give rise to special moral obligations towards them. Several collateral harms, including decreased psychological wellbeing, financial costs, loss of economic opportunities, and intrusion and control over their private lives, are identified. Two competing perspectives in moral philosophy are applied in order to assess whether the harms are permissible. The first is consequentialist and the second is deontological, and it is argued that both of them fails and therefore it is hard to defend the position that allowing for these harms would be morally permissible, even for the sake of the overall aims of incarceration. Instead, it is argued that these harms imply that imprisonment should only be used as a last resort. Where it is necessary, imprisonment should give rise to special moral obligations towards families of prisoners. Using the notion of residual obligation, these obligations are defended, categorized and clarified. Paper 3 evaluates electronic monitoring (EM) from an ethical perspective and discusses whether it could be a promising alternative to imprisonment as a criminal sanction for a series of criminal offenses. EM evaluated from an ethical perspective as six initial ethical challenges are addressed and discussed. It is argued that since EM is developing as a technology and a punitive means, it is urgent to discuss its ethical implications and incorporate moral values into its design and development.QC 20140519
14
Merle, Jean-Christophe. "Strafen aus Respekt vor der Menschenwürde eine Kritik am Retributivismus aus der Perspektive des deutschen Idealismus." Berlin de Gruyter Recht, 2005. http://deposit.d-nb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=2909124&prov=M&dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm.
Full text
15
Cheng, Jen-Chieh, and 鄭人傑. "On Retributivism of Punishment." Thesis, 2008. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/ywe79b.
Full textAbstract:
碩士東吳大學
法律學系
96
The theories of punishment seek to understand why and how we punish. Punishment is often discussed in terms of two concepts: the general justifying aim of punishment (why we punish) and the principle of distribution (how we punish). In history, two of the most often used justifications of punishment are utilitarianism and retributivism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, and strictly for punishing crimes according to their severity. Retributivism covers all theories that justify punishment because the offender deserves it. This is interpreted in two ways, either: a person must be punished because they deserves it (desert if a sufficient reason for punishment), or a person must not be punished unless they deserves it (desert is a necessary but not sufficient necessary condition of punishment). Retributive theories usually put forward that desert is a sufficient reason for punishment. In the 19th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in The Metaphysical Elements of Justice of retribution as a legal principle: "Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime." Immanuel Kant regards punishment as a matter of justice. He states that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done. Kant thought that murder required the death penalty in order to respect the criminal as a rational and responsible moral agent - life imprisonment would deprive the criminal of the autonomy which is part of his heritage as a person. In ethics and law, "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportional to the severity of the infraction. The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world. Depending on the retributivist, the crime's level of severity might be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or moral imbalance the crime caused. As a result, retributivism should be the most convicing theory of punishment.
16
Backen, George Jose. "A defense of moral sentiment retributivism." 2005. http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3185308.
Full textAbstract:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--State University of New York at Buffalo, 2005.Title from PDF title page (viewed on Feb. 24, 2006) Available through UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Thesis adviser: Randall Dipert. Includes bibliographical references.
17
Lin, Tzu-Chieh, and 林子傑. "Justifications for Punishment:Focus on Jean-Christophe Merle’s Criticism to Kantian Retributivism." Thesis, 2014. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/up2976.
Full textAbstract:
碩士東吳大學
法律學系
102
The Kantian retributivism represents a critical turn on the development of theory of punishment. Theories before Kant was regarded by him as lack of respect to the dignity of criminal, for these theories merely take criminals as means toward some kind of good. The Kantian retributivism could correspond to three following theses: 1) all criminals, and only criminals, should be punished; 2) the punishment serves as retribution for the crimes committed; 3) the degree of punishment must be equivalent to the crime in order to show the criminal’s moral demerits. Since Kant did not tell much about the ground of his theory of retribution, we must exam this theory on the ground of Kantian philosophy of law and ethics. Jean-Christophe Merle contends that the Kantian retributivism contradicts to Kantian philosophy of law and ethics, therefore, on the ground of Kantian philosophy, Merle reconstruct a theory according to the categorical imperative, a sort of rehabilitation theory: by committing a crime, the criminal excludes himself out of the commonwealth, loses his civil personality and a state of nature by definition prevails over the relationship between the criminal and the rest of the commonwealth; however, the categorical imperative demands the creation of a legal system, if the establishment of the institutions constitutive of a state of law not be immediately possible, then permissive law demands achievement of it for everyone in the quickest way possible. The criminal law is thus a second order demanding the criminal to reenter the commonwealth, and the only means to that end is termed by Kant in Pedagogy “discipline,” the unilateral coercion upon the criminal. Therefore, only the punishment as rehabilitation is permissible, which at the same time directs toward the criminal himself, regards him as an end with respect to his dignity. In my opinion, there is no legal authority under the state of nature, thus as well as no authority to judge and punish; while the state of law indicates the coexistence of empirical freedoms according to the universal law of equal rights for all legal persons, so that the criminal is in a state of exception under the legal authority. It is necessary to suspend the criminal’s right in order to protect everyone’s equal freedom, including the freedom of the criminal. After denying the moral ground of Kantian retributivism, in the situation that humanity means reason, theory of general deterrence could be one of the rational lawgiving. In the other hand, only Merle’s contention, that is, humanity means human himself, can absolutely prohibit torture and death penalty. This would leads to a sort of theory of specific deterrence in order to fulfill the rehabilitation of the criminal, and a humane penal system.
18
Hansson, Johanna. "Genvägen förbi hanterandet av en patriarkal struktur : - En idé och ideologianalys om dödsstraff för sexualbrott i Indien." Thesis, 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-48086.
Full textAbstract:
This study is a qualitative analysis of ideas and ideological content, which main focus is the Indian legislation on rape offenses which was adapted after a brutal rape case in Dehli 2012. The purpose of the study is to analyze how Indian news sites portray the motives behind the new death penalty legislation. The analysis intention is to see if there´s a possibility that the arguments can be categorized within a theoretical framework such as utilitarianism, retributivism or feminism. The material used in the analysis is recently published, high-profile news articles from Indian media. The result signifies that the Indian government's argument for the death penalty legislation is justified primarily through justice and revenge for the victim, as well as the purpose of deterrence, which can be compared to the retributive setting. The majority of the arguments were also problematized from a feministic perspective, with the explanation that execution isn´t the solution to the country's patriarchal structure and gender-based violence and oppression. One factor that has an impact on the study is the limited freedom of the press in India where authorities have censored certain material on the internet, which affects the reliability of the study material. In conclusion the analyzed material uses the same sorts of argument that reflects upon feminist rationales, but this result also indicates that the unified result may have an explanation for the limited press freedom, the country's corruption and the censorship of the authorities.
19
Moss, Andrew. "Transforming contemporary criminal sentencing: introducing a composite-aims restorative justice model." Thesis, 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/1828/3186.
Full textAbstract:
One of the most important questions facing legal philosophers concerns the legitimacy of state institutions of legal punishment which visit citizens who have broken the law with condemnation and hard treatment. The purpose of this thesis is to attempt to answer the question of how we ought to respond to criminal offenders whose guilt has been established. The Canadian approach to criminal sentencing is evaluated, as are prominent restorative justice sentencing models. A novel composite-aims restorative justice model of responding to convicted offenders is introduced and the model’s aims and limits are specified. The thesis attempts to establish that a composite-aims model which encompasses certain restorative justice values and processes can provide a desirable framework for responding to convicted offenders. The implication for Canadian criminal justice policy is that the practice of applying punitive sanctions that are proportional to the moral gravity of the criminal offence should be abandoned in favour of a model based on securing censure, amends, crime control and reformation.
20
Teixeira, Elisabete Natália Silvério Oliveira Marques. "Julgamentos de justiça, comportamentos retributivos e restaurativos: efeito da ativação." Master's thesis, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/49515.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de mestrado integrado em PsicologiaAs reações a uma situação injusta relacionam-se com dois tipos de justiça: retributiva ou restaurativa. Darley e Pittman (2003) sugerem que estas reações são determinadas pela indignação moral causada pela transgressão. O objetivo desta investigação é explorar este conceito de indignação moral, insuficientemente explicitado por estes autores. Procedimento: Validámos vinhetas para avaliar a perceção de justiça (Estudo 1), manipulando a intencionalidade da ação (acidental ou intencional) e o dano (leve ou pesado); numa segunda parte (estudo 2) o grupo experimental foi ativado através de exercício físico para testar se a indignação moral pode ser operacionalizada como o efeito conjunto de: perceção de uma quebra de normas sociais, intensidade do dano causado e ativação fisiológica, e avaliar o impacto destas características na perceção de justiça e nas decisões de retribuição/restauração. Amostra: Validação: 407 pessoas, online; estudo experimental: 62 pessoas. Resultados: Os participantes foram sensíveis à manipulação da intencionalidade e do dano (estudo 1); no estudo experimental apenas se verificou o efeito da intencionalidade nos julgamentos de justiça e decisões retributivas e restaurativas, não tendo a ativação fisiológica qualquer efeito.
Reactions to unjust situations relate to two types of justice: retributive or restorative. Darley and Pittman (2003) suggest that these reactions are determined by moral indignation, caused by a transgression. This research is an attempt to further explore and elaborate the concept of moral indignation. Procedure: We validated a set of vignettes to evaluate justice-perception (Study 1), by manipulating the intentionality of the actions (accidental or intentional) and the perceived damage (light or severe); on a second study (study 2), an experimental group went through a set of physical exercise as an attempt to operationalize moral indignation as the combination of: a perception of a violated social norm, severity of a caused damage and physiological activation. Furthermore, the impact of these characteristics in the perception of justice and retributive/restorative decisions was evaluated. Sample Validation: 407 participants, online; experimental study: 62 participants. Results: Participants were sensible to manipulating intentionality and damage (study 1); on the experimental group study, it was verified the effect of intentionality on justice judgments, retributive and restorative decisions, not observing any differences from the physiological activation.
21
Wolf, Markus Johann. "Punishment and therapy : a progressive synthesis." Thesis, 2002. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/1021.
Full textAbstract:
The moral justification of punishment is the fundamental
concern of this thesis. It is argued that a moral response to
crime has to be a civilised response; therefore, the notion of
"civility" is defined and discussed. Punishment is then
defended in such a way that it accords with being a civilised
response to crime. It is argued that in order to be such a
response, and thereby qualify as a moral response, punishment
must have a certain structure, i.e. it must fulfil seven
necessary conditions, which, it is argued, together constitute
the sufficient condition for morally justified punishment. In
arguing for each of the necessary conditions, different onedimensional
theories of punishment are dealt with
(retributivism, utilitarianism, deterrence theory,
rehabilitationism, a paternalistic theory of punishment, and
restitutionalism}, indicating that each fulfils some of the
criteria for morally justified punishment. None of the onedimensional
theories fulfils all the necessary conditions,
however, and hence none on its own fulfils the sufficient
condition for morally justified punishment. This is not to
argue that a straightforward theory could never on its own
fulfil the conditions for morally justified punishment, but I
have not been able to conceive how this could be done. The
theory I here present is therefore a hybrid approach,
incorporating elements of all the above-mentioned theories
into a unitary theory. In doing so, it fulfils all the
necessary conditions for being a civilised response to crime,
thereby fulfilling the sufficient condition too, and hence
providing a morally defensible account of punishment.
Finally, the question of how this theory can be put into
practice is addressed. Because the objective of punishment
ought to be a civilised response, thereby benefiting both
society as a whole and those being punished and rehabilitated, the thesis may be seen as a progressive synthesis of the
various approaches examined.Philosophy, Practical & Systematic Theology
D. Litt. et Phil. (Philosophy)
22
Teiga, João Pedro Vaz. "Princípio da irredutibilidade retributiva da admissibilidade de alterações ao quomodo prestacional e quantum retributivo." Master's thesis, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/31606.
Full text