Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBaier, Kurt
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-07T19:31:51Z
dc.date.available2021-09-07T19:31:51Z
dc.date.issued1/1/1977
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12648/3327
dc.description.abstractIn textbooks on punishment one usually finds four major "theories" or "justifications" of punishment: (1) the retributive, (2) the deterrence, (3) the reform or rehabilitation, and ( 4) the incapacitation or social defense, theories.1 They are usually offered as rival theories of the proper (primary) purpose or function of punishment.2 And it is generally assumed that the general practice of punishing people and individual acts of punishment are morally justified if and only if, and to the extent that, they serve that purpose or perform that function.
dc.titleThe Strengths and Limits of the Theory of Retributive Punishment
dc.typearticle
refterms.dateFOA2021-09-07T19:31:51Z
dc.description.institutionSUNY Brockport
dc.source.peerreviewedTRUE
dc.source.statuspublished
dc.description.publicationtitlePhilosophic Exchange
dc.contributor.organizationUniversity of Pittsburgh
dc.languate.isoen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
phil_ex/vol8/iss1/3/fulltext ...
Size:
2.109Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Philosophic Exchange
    Philosophic Exchange is published by the Center for Philosophic Exchange, at the College at Brockport. The Center for Philosophic Exchange was founded by SUNY Chancellor Samuel Gould in 1969 to conduct a continuing program of philosophical inquiry, relating to both academic and public issues. Each year the Center hosts four speakers, and each speaker gives a public lecture that is intended for a general audience. These lectures are then published in this journal.

Show simple item record