The Metric of Punishment Severity

Douglas Husak
{"title":"The Metric of Punishment Severity","authors":"Douglas Husak","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190070595.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of retributive penal philosophy, requires (ceteris paribus) the severity of the punishments imposed to be a function of the seriousness of the crimes committed. This principle cannot be applied without a metric or common denominator to assess whether two impositions of punishment are equal or unequal in severity. To identify such a metric, we must first decide whether it is wholly objective or at least partly subjective, involving an essential reference to the psychological response of whoever is punished. Even when this issue is resolved, no single measure of punishment severity may exist. Instead, all we might be able to say is that a given instance of punishment is more severe along one dimension and less severe along another, with no clear means to specify which is more or less severe, all things considered. This conclusion has potentially grave implications for the adequacy of a retributive theory of punishment that takes desert and proportionality as central. No solution is readily available without a substantial retreat from ideal theory. Perhaps the best way forward is to adopt a deflationary role for proportionality and desert rather than to abandon them altogether.","PeriodicalId":297154,"journal":{"name":"Of One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Of One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190070595.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of retributive penal philosophy, requires (ceteris paribus) the severity of the punishments imposed to be a function of the seriousness of the crimes committed. This principle cannot be applied without a metric or common denominator to assess whether two impositions of punishment are equal or unequal in severity. To identify such a metric, we must first decide whether it is wholly objective or at least partly subjective, involving an essential reference to the psychological response of whoever is punished. Even when this issue is resolved, no single measure of punishment severity may exist. Instead, all we might be able to say is that a given instance of punishment is more severe along one dimension and less severe along another, with no clear means to specify which is more or less severe, all things considered. This conclusion has potentially grave implications for the adequacy of a retributive theory of punishment that takes desert and proportionality as central. No solution is readily available without a substantial retreat from ideal theory. Perhaps the best way forward is to adopt a deflationary role for proportionality and desert rather than to abandon them altogether.
惩罚严厉的度量标准
比例原则是报应性刑法哲学的基石,它要求(其他条件相同)所施加惩罚的严厉程度应与所犯罪行的严重程度相一致。如果没有一个衡量标准或公分母来评估两种惩罚的严厉程度是相等还是不相等,就不能适用这一原则。为了确定这样一个度量标准,我们必须首先确定它是完全客观的还是至少部分主观的,其中涉及到被惩罚者的心理反应。即使这个问题得到解决,也不可能存在惩罚严厉程度的单一衡量标准。相反,我们只能说,给定的惩罚在一个维度上更严重,在另一个维度上更轻,没有明确的方法来说明哪个更严重,哪个更轻。这一结论对以应得性和相称性为中心的报应性惩罚理论的充分性具有潜在的严重影响。如果不从理想理论上作出实质性的让步,就不可能轻易得到解决方案。也许最好的办法是采取适度的通货紧缩角色,而不是完全放弃它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信