Abstract
Criminal law theorists overwhelmingly agree that for some conduct to constitute punishment, it must be imposed intentionally. Some retributivists have argued that because punishment consists only of intentional inflictions, theories of punishment can ignore the merely foreseen hardships of prison, such as the mental and emotional distress inmates experience. Though such distress is foreseen, it is not intended, and so it is technically not punishment. In this essay, I explain why theories of punishment must pay close attention to the unintentional burdens of punishment. In two very important contexts—punishment measurement and justification—we use the term “punishment” to capture not only intentional harsh treatment but certain unintentional harsh treatment as well. This means that the widely accepted view that punishment is an intentional infliction requires substantial caveats. It also means that any purported justification of punishment that addresses only the intentional infliction of punishment is woefully incomplete.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference23 articles.
1. Punishment as Suffering;Gray;Vand. L. Rev.,2010
2. Toward Understanding the Principle of Double Effect
3. Holistic Retributivism
4. Retributivists Need Not and Should Not Endorse the Subjectivist Account of Punishment;Simons;Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar,2009
5. Bentham on Stilts: The Bare Relevance of Subjectivity to Retributive Justice;Markel;Cal. L. Rev.,2010
Cited by
29 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献