The Strengths and Limits of the Theory of Retributive Punishment
|dc.description.abstract||In 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.title||The Strengths and Limits of the Theory of Retributive Punishment|
|dc.contributor.organization||University of Pittsburgh|
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
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.