Philosophy Punishment
by
Thom Brooks
  • LAST MODIFIED: 30 March 2015
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0094

Introduction

The punishment of criminals is a topic of long-standing philosophical interest since the ancient Greeks. This interest has focused on several considerations, including the justification of punishment, who should be permitted to punish, and how we might best set punishments for crimes. This entry focuses on the most important contributions in this field. The focus will be on specific theoretical approaches to punishment including both traditional theories of punishment (retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation) and more contemporary alternatives (expressivism, restorative justice, hybrid theories, unified theories) with an additional section on capital punishment, perhaps the particular form of punishment that has received the most sustained philosophical attention. These theories of punishment address two important questions: first, who should be permitted to punish and, secondly, who should be permitted to be punished. These questions then concern the justification of punishment and its distribution. While the majority today often identifies their theories as retributivist, there is a great diversity of theories defended. This entry will highlight the leading work for each view.

General Overviews

There are several excellent general overviews on the philosophy of punishment. Perhaps the best general overview on punishment is Bedau 2010, while the best on legal punishment would be Duff 2008. Murtagh 2005 also offers a useful general overview of punishment. Foucault 1977 offers a revealing account of the history and sociology of punishment. An outstanding comprehensive sociological examination of punishment can be found in Garland 1990. Those interested in general introductions to how the philosophy of punishment meets the practice of punishment should see Easton and Piper 2005.

  • Bedau, H. A. “Punishment.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2010.

    E-mail Citation »

    A terrific general overview of philosophical debates on the subject of punishment. Very accessible to those coming to the study of punishment to the first time.

    Find this resource:

    • Duff, R. A. “Legal Punishment.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2008.

      E-mail Citation »

      Offers an excellent overview of legal punishment and related philosophical debates. Readers coming to the study of legal punishment for the first time will greatly benefit from this essay.

      Find this resource:

      • Easton, S., and C. Piper. Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

        E-mail Citation »

        An outstanding general introduction to the theory and practice of punishment. Highly recommended to new readers on the subject.

        Find this resource:

        • Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1977.

          E-mail Citation »

          A revealing account of the history and sociology of punishment. This text will be of more interest to advanced readers.

          Find this resource:

          • Garland, David. Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

            DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226922508.001.0001E-mail Citation »

            A comprehensive sociological examination of punishment aimed at the more advanced scholarly reader.

            Find this resource:

            • Murtagh, K. “Punishment.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. 2005.

              E-mail Citation »

              A useful general introduction to punishment covering the major areas and debates in the field.

              Find this resource:

              Textbooks

              There are many excellent textbooks on the philosophy of punishment. The most widely known classic is Honderich 1976, which has been revised in the form of Honderich 2006. Other impressive texts that cover substantial ground are Ten 1987 and Walker 1991. Primoratz 1998 offers an alternative to these accounts in its strong endorsement of retributivism and capital punishment. The most comprehensive treatment is Brooks 2012, which considers all theories of punishment noted in this bibliography. It endorses a unified theory of approach to punishment.

              • Brooks, T. Punishment. London: Routledge, 2012.

                E-mail Citation »

                The most comprehensive treatment that considers all theories of punishment noted in this bibliographical entry, the book offers a defense of the unified theory of punishment. Will be of great interest not only to those coming to the study of punishment for the first time but also for more advanced readers.

                Find this resource:

                • Honderich, T. Punishment: The Supposed Justifications. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1976.

                  E-mail Citation »

                  The most widely known classic textbook on punishment. Very accessible to those coming to the subject for the first time.

                  Find this resource:

                  • Honderich, T. Punishment: The Supposed Justifications Revisited. London: Pluto, 2006.

                    E-mail Citation »

                    A newly revised edition of the most widely known classic textbook on punishment. Includes several updates.

                    Find this resource:

                    • Primoratz, I. Justifying Legal Punishment. 2d ed. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1998.

                      E-mail Citation »

                      A very useful textbook that defends a retributivist theory of punishment in contrast to the many pro-consequentialist texts available previously.

                      Find this resource:

                      • Ten, C. L. Crime, Guilt and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

                        E-mail Citation »

                        An excellent textbook that is comprehensive in scope covering all major areas in the field.

                        Find this resource:

                        • Walker, N. Why Punish? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

                          E-mail Citation »

                          A very good textbook that covers all major theories in an engaging way. Will be of great use to students coming to the study of punishment for the first time.

                          Find this resource:

                          Anthologies

                          There are a few excellent anthologies collecting many of the best essays on the philosophy of punishment. The most widely used is perhaps Duff and Garland 1994 and von Hirsch and Ashworth 1998. Simmons, et al. 1995 brings together the best articles on punishment appearing in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs. Duff 1993 offers the most comprehensive collection of classic readings on the subject.

                          • Duff, A., ed. Punishment. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth, 1993.

                            E-mail Citation »

                            The most comprehensive collection of classic readings on the subject available. It covers most major approaches and includes a useful brief introduction.

                            Find this resource:

                            • Duff, A., and D. Garland, eds. A Reader on Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

                              E-mail Citation »

                              The most widely used anthology on punishment available. Contains both classic and more contemporary essays.

                              Find this resource:

                              • Simmons, A. J., M. Cohen, J. Cohen, and C. R. Beitz, eds. Punishment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.

                                E-mail Citation »

                                An excellent collection bringing together the best articles previously published in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs. Many of these essays have become leading classics in the field.

                                Find this resource:

                                • von Hirsch, A., and A. Ashworth, eds. Principled Sentencing. 2d ed. Oxford: Hart, 1998.

                                  E-mail Citation »

                                  A widely used and highly useful anthology of readings from leading theorists on punishment. Covers a variety of approaches and topics. Perhaps best for those coming to the study of punishment for the first time.

                                  Find this resource:

                                  Retributivism

                                  Retributivism is the view that only deserving persons should be punished. Some retributivists argue further that deserving persons should be punished in proportion to their desert, although there is disagreement on how this should be best understood. Kant 1996 offers a traditional argument in favor of retributivism with further explanation of his argument found in Brooks 2003. The classic contemporary essay in defense of retributivism is Armstrong 1961. Cottingham 1979 offers an excellent analysis of the various versions of retributivist theories of punishment that have been defended. The most comprehensive defense of contemporary retributivism is Moore 1997. Nussbaum 1993 presents a well-argued understanding of important limitations on retributivism, including the enactment of retribution in practice and how retributivists might accommodate issues pertaining to equity and mercy. Davis 1983 offers an influential explanation of how retributivists might set punishments in proportion to crimes. Lippke 2007 argues that a retributivist theory of punishment has important implications for a theory of sentencing. Finally, Husak 1992 raises questions about the importance of desert in punishing.

                                  • Armstrong, K. G. “The Retributivist Hits Back.” Mind 70 (1961): 471–490.

                                    DOI: 10.1093/mind/LXX.280.471E-mail Citation »

                                    The classic contemporary defense of retributivism. At the time of its publication, so-called utilitarian theories of punishment were dominant. This essay helped establish the forthcoming dominance of retributivism as the most popular theory of punishment today.

                                    Find this resource:

                                    • Brooks, T. “Kant’s Theory of Punishment.” Utilitas 15 (2003): 206–224.

                                      DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800003952E-mail Citation »

                                      An excellent analysis and explanation of Kant’s retributivist theory of punishment. Kant’s theory is often seen as the classic modern theory of retributivism, although this theory has been hotly debated. This analysis addresses these debates and offers a new interpretation of how we might understand Kant’s theory of punishment.

                                      Find this resource:

                                      • Cottingham, J. “Varieties of Retribution.” Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1979): 238–246.

                                        DOI: 10.2307/2218820E-mail Citation »

                                        An excellent analysis of the various versions of retributivist theories of punishment. A famous and influential essay highlighting the many differences between competing accounts of retributivism.

                                        Find this resource:

                                        • Davis, M. “How to Make the Punishment Fit the Crime.” Ethics 93 (1983): 726–752.

                                          DOI: 10.1086/292491E-mail Citation »

                                          An influential explanation of how retributivists might set punishments in proportion to crimes. An accessible and provocative essay that will be of interest to readers both new and more advanced.

                                          Find this resource:

                                          • Husak, D. “Why Punish the Deserving?” Nous 26 (1992): 447–464.

                                            DOI: 10.2307/2216023E-mail Citation »

                                            Raises important questions about the importance of desert for punishment that challenge much conventional thinking on the subject.

                                            Find this resource:

                                            • Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. Edited and translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

                                              DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511809644E-mail Citation »

                                              Offers a traditional argument in favor of retributivism. This is the classic modern theory of punishment. See Brooks 2003 for a helpful interpretation of how it might be best understood.

                                              Find this resource:

                                              • Lippke, Richard L. Rethinking Imprisonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

                                                DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199209125.001.0001E-mail Citation »

                                                Argues that a retributivist theory of punishment has important implications for a theory of sentencing. Will be of particular interest to more advanced readers.

                                                Find this resource:

                                                • Moore, Michael. Placing Blame: A Theory of Criminal Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.

                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                  A scholarly tour de force offering a robust defense of retributivism. More advanced readers with some familiarity with the literature may benefit the most.

                                                  Find this resource:

                                                  • Nussbaum, M. C. “Equity and Mercy.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (1993): 83–125.

                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                    Offers an important critique of retributivist theory and its ability to account for the particulars of cases.

                                                    Find this resource:

                                                    Deterrence

                                                    Deterrence is the view that we should set punishments for crimes to the degree that they might have a deterrent effect. Proponents of general deterrence argue that this effect should focus on deterring potential offenders; proponents of special deterrence argue that this effect should focus on the individual criminal we plan to punish. The traditional defense of deterrence is presented in Beccaria 1986 and Bentham 1996. Perhaps the best and most influential contemporary defense of deterrence is found in Ellis 2003. Deterrence-proponents have often been subjected to the criticism that their theory would justify the punishment of an innocent person if this enabled a deterrent effect. This objection is challenged best in Rosen 1997. Kahan 1999 offers a critique of the importance of deterrence considerations in our deliberations about punishment in general.

                                                    • Beccaria, Cesare. On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by D. Young. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1986.

                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                      Offers the traditional defense of deterrence. Will be of interest not only for its historical relevance but also for the force of its central arguments that remain influential today. Highly accessible to those coming to the study of punishment for the first time.

                                                      Find this resource:

                                                      • Bentham, Jeremy. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Edited by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                        A classic defense of deterrent punishments by the modern founder of utilitarianism.

                                                        Find this resource:

                                                        • Ellis, A. “A Deterrence Theory of Punishment.” Philosophical Quarterly 53 (2003): 337–351.

                                                          DOI: 10.1111/1467-9213.00316E-mail Citation »

                                                          The best and most influential contemporary defense of deterrence. Will be of interest to both new and more advanced readers. Particularly useful discussion of how the theory of deterrence might avoid the charge of ever punishing innocent persons if doing so might yield a deterrent effect.

                                                          Find this resource:

                                                          • Kahan, D. “The Secret Ambition of Deterrence.” Harvard Law Review 113 (1999): 413–500.

                                                            DOI: 10.2307/1342330E-mail Citation »

                                                            Offers important criticisms of deterrence theory. It questions how deep our commitments are to theories of punishment based upon their deterrent properties rather than our views about what persons might deserve.

                                                            Find this resource:

                                                            • Rosen, F. “Utilitarianism and the Punishment of the Innocent: The Origins of a False Doctrine.” Utilitas 9 (1997): 23–37.

                                                              DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800005112E-mail Citation »

                                                              An excellent analysis of the objection to deterrence, which states that deterrence proponents are open to punishing the innocent under certain conditions.

                                                              Find this resource:

                                                              Rehabilitation

                                                              Rehabilitation theorists argue that the goal of punishment should be the rehabilitation of criminals. The overwhelming majority will be released into the public once more, and our aim should be to ensure they are rehabilitated so that they do not reoffend. Morris 1981 offers one important account, although the most influential classic essay is Hampton 1984. Crow 2001 presents an important account of where rehabilitative theory meets practice. Allen 1981 charts the declining interest in rehabilitative theories of punishment among policy makers. A controversial approach to thinking about rehabilitation concerns the use of shame punishments. Proponents of shame punishments claim they are helpful in instilling a sense of guilt leading to the rehabilitation of offenders. For arguments in favor of shame punishments see Brooks 2008 and Braithwaite 1989; for arguments against shame punishments see Nussbaum 2004 and Whitman 1998.

                                                              • Allen, F. A. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981.

                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                Useful analysis charting the declining interest in rehabilitative theories of punishment among policy makers.

                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                • Braithwaite, J. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

                                                                  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511804618E-mail Citation »

                                                                  Argues in favor of the use of shame punishment and its rehabilitative qualities. Will be of interest to those coming to the subject for the first time. Contains a number of excellent examples and illustrations from practice.

                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                  • Brooks, T. “Shame on You, Shame on Me? Nussbaum on Shame Punishment.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (2008): 322–334.

                                                                    DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00403.xE-mail Citation »

                                                                    Offers a defense of shame punishment as a form of rehabilitative punishment that can respect the dignity of offenders.

                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                    • Crow, I. The Treatment and Rehabilitation of Offenders. London: SAGE, 2001.

                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                      An important account on where rehabilitative theory meets practice. Covers all the major issues regarding rehabilitative theories of punishment.

                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                      • Hampton, J. “The Moral Education Theory of Punishment.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1984): 208–238.

                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                        The most influential classic essay on the rehabilitative theory of punishment. Highly influential among rehabilitation proponents and highly accessible for those coming to the study of the subject for the first time.

                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                        • Morris, H. “A Paternalistic Theory of Punishment.” American Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1981): 263–271.

                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                          An important defense of the role of moral education within a theory of punishment. A highly accessible essay as well.

                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                          • Nussbaum, M. C. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                            Offers an argument against the rehabilitative effects of shame punishment and use of shame in legal matters.

                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                            • Whitman, J. Q. “What is Wrong with Inflicting Shame Sanctions?” Yale Law Journal 107 (1998): 1055–1092.

                                                                              DOI: 10.2307/797205E-mail Citation »

                                                                              The classic argument against shame punishment. Wide-ranging and widely influential.

                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                              Expressivism

                                                                              Expressivists are divided into two camps. The first camp argues that punishment serves the important purpose of expressing the community’s anger toward a criminal for his or her crime. The classic and most influential defense of expressivism is Feinberg 1970. Primoratz 1989 offers a defense based upon punishment as a form of language where the community “speaks” to offenders via punishment. The second camp defends a view of punishment as “censure” or “communication.” The best defense of punishment as expressing public censure is von Hirsch 1993. The communication view is that punishment not only expresses censure to criminals but criminals communicate back via a form of secular penance. Duff 1986 offers the first attempt at an account of the communicative theory of punishment. Duff 2001 offers a more complete defense of this theory. Bennett 2006 also offers a further important development of this communicative theory. Davis 1991 presents an early criticism of expressivism, and Kahan 1996 offers a more comprehensive critique of expressivist theories of punishment.

                                                                              • Bennett, C. “State Denunciation of Crime.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (2006): 288–304.

                                                                                DOI: 10.1177/1740468106071222E-mail Citation »

                                                                                Offers an important development of the communicative theory of punishment as the state denunciation of criminal acts.

                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                • Davis, M. “Punishment as Language: Misleading Analogy for Desert Theorists.” Law and Philosophy 10 (1991): 311–322.

                                                                                  DOI: 10.1007/BF00149800E-mail Citation »

                                                                                  An important early criticism of the expressivist theory of punishment.

                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                  • Duff, R. A. Trials and Punishments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                    Offers an excellent first presentation of the importance of expressivism as communication. The most influential and comprehensive account. Will be of interest to those with greater familiarity with theories of punishment.

                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                    • Duff, R. A. Punishment, Communication, and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                      A widely influential defense of the communicative theory of punishment. Comprehensive and wide-ranging analysis that is essential reading.

                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                      • Feinberg, J. “The Expressive Function of Punishment.” In Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility. By J. Feinberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.

                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                        The classic and most influential defense of the expressivist theory of punishment. Of importance for those interested in development of expressivist theories of punishment and also accessible as an introduction to the subject.

                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                        • Kahan, D. “What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?” University of Chicago Law Review 63 (1996): 591–653.

                                                                                          DOI: 10.2307/1600237E-mail Citation »

                                                                                          A comprehensive critique of expressivist theories of punishment.

                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                          • Primoratz, I. “Punishment as Language.” Philosophy 64 (1989): 187–205.

                                                                                            DOI: 10.1017/S0031819100044478E-mail Citation »

                                                                                            A very good defense of punishment as a form of expressive language.

                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                            • von Hirsch, A. Censure and Sanctions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                              Offers a powerful defense of punishment as expressing a form of public censure.

                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                              Restorative Justice

                                                                                              A highly influential defense of restorative justice is Braithwaite 2002. An excellent general overview of restorative justice with critics and defenders is von Hirsch, et al. 2003. Restorative justice proponents have been highly interested in addressing juvenile offending. Walgrave 1995 offers an excellent treatment of this subject. The most comprehensive treatment bringing together proponents and their critiques is Weijers and Duff 2002. Hudson 1998 offers a very useful analysis of how restorative justice may be applied in cases involving sexual and racial crimes. Mills 2003 argues persuasively for restorative justice in cases of intimate abuse. An excellent general critique of restorative justice is Ashworth 1993. Brooks 2014 argues for expanding restorative outcomes by including more punitive options and so embedding restorative justice much better into the criminal justice system.

                                                                                              • Ashworth, A. “Some Doubts about Restorative Justice.” Criminal Law Forum 4 (1993): 277–299.

                                                                                                DOI: 10.1007/BF01096075E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                Offers an excellent general critique of restorative justice as a viable alternative theory of punishment.

                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                • Braithwaite, John. Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                  A highly influential defense of restorative justice. A scholarly account with a rich array of examples of restoration in practice.

                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                  • Brooks, T. “On Punitive Restoration.” Demos Quarterly 2 (2014).

                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                    Argues for embedding restorative justice much better into the criminal justice system by expanding restorative outcomes to include more punitive options.

                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                    • Hudson, B. “Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence.” Journal of Law and Society 25 (1998): 237–256.

                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1111/1467-6478.00089E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                      An excellent analysis of how restorative justice may be applied in cases involving sexual and racial crimes.

                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                      • Mills, Linda G. Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.

                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                        Argues persuasively for restorative justice in cases of intimate abuse. Accessible to those without background knowledge, wide-ranging, and influential.

                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                        • von Hirsch, A., J. Roberts, A. E. Bottoms, K. Roach, and M. Schiff, eds. Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms? Oxford: Hart, 2003.

                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                          An excellent general overview of restorative justice with essays by both critics and defenders of the approach.

                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                          • Walgrave, L. “Restorative Justice for Juveniles.” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 34 (1995): 228–249.

                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.1995.tb00841.xE-mail Citation »

                                                                                                            Offers an excellent treatment of how restorative justice can best address juvenile offending. This is an important topic as restorative justice has made real inroads in thinking about the punishment of juveniles.

                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                            • Weijers, Ido, and A. Duff, eds. Punishing Juveniles: Principle and Critique. Oxford: Hart, 2002.

                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                              The most comprehensive treatment of restorative justice and juvenile offending bringing together proponents and critics. An excellent resource for both those coming to the topic for the first time as well as those with greater familiarity.

                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                              Hybrid Theories

                                                                                                              There have been several important attempts to offer a hybrid theory of punishment, although these proponents are much fewer in number than proponents of the previous theories of punishment above. The most classic defense bringing together retributivist and consequentialist considerations under a new framework is offered in Rawls 1955. A related but more developed defense is offered by Hart 1968. Goldman 1982 offers an important rights-based hybrid theory of punishment. Robinson 1987 defends perhaps the most persuasive argument in favor of a hybrid theory of punishment.

                                                                                                              • Goldman, A. H. “Toward a New Theory of Punishment.” Law and Philosophy 1 (1982): 57–76.

                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1007/BF00143146E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                Offers an important rights-based hybrid theory of punishment. An accessible essay that will be of special interest to those working in the area of rights.

                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                • Hart, H. L. A. Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                  Offers a more developed defense of a hybrid theory of punishment found in Rawls 1955. The classic hybrid account that sets the stage for much of the philosophical analyses of punishment to come.

                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  • Rawls, J. “Two Concepts of Rules.” Philosophical Review 64 (1955): 3–32.

                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.2307/2182230E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                    The most classic defense of a hybrid theory of punishment.

                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    • Robinson, P. H. “Hybrid Principles for the Distribution of Criminal Sanctions.” Northwestern University Law Review 82 (1987): 19–42.

                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                      The most persuasive argument in favor of a hybrid theory of punishment. Will be of interest to those with greater familiarity with theories of punishment more generally.

                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      Unified Theories

                                                                                                                      There is an important, but neglected, tradition in penal theory we might understand as the unified theory of punishment. This tradition is strongly pluralistic in defending theories of punishment that argue that punishment should combine retributivist, deterrent, rehabilitative, and perhaps further elements within a coherent, unified theory of punishment. The first defense of the unified theory of punishment is Hegel 1991 and a full explanation of this theory of punishment can be found in Brooks 2013. Early defenders included British Idealist philosophers, such as Bosanquet 1923 and Green 1986. Brooks 2003 offers a further explanation of Green’s unified theory of punishment. The most comprehensive defense of the unified theory of punishment is Brooks 2012. While this tradition has been neglected, this framework is an important alternative to existing traditions and may have value to those with interests in Hegel and Hegelian philosophy.

                                                                                                                      • Bosanquet, B. The Philosophical Theory of the State. 4th ed. London: Macmillan, 1923.

                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                        A British Idealist defender of the unified theory of punishment offering an accessible account of how punishment may bring together retributivist, preventative, and rehabilitative elements in a unified account.

                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        • Brooks, T. “T. H. Green’s Theory of Punishment.” History of Political Thought 24 (2003): 685–701.

                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                          Offers an explanation and defense of Green’s unified theory of punishment. A scholarly analysis aimed at more advanced readers.

                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          • Brooks, T. Punishment. London: Routledge, 2012.

                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                            The most comprehensive defense of the unified theory of punishment. It is highly accessible and will be of interest to those coming to the subject for the first time, as well as for more advanced readers. It offers a critique of all other theories of punishment and also addresses the problems associated with relating theory to practice.

                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            • Brooks, T. Hegel’s Political Philosophy: A Systematic Reading of the Philosophy of Right. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013.

                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                              Offers an explanation and defense of Hegel’s unified theory of punishment. Will be of interest to those with some familiarity with Hegel’s philosophy more generally.

                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              • Green, T. H. Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation and Other Writings. Edited by P. Harris and J. Morrow. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                A British Idealist defender of the unified theory of punishment that had great influence among British Hegelians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                • Hegel, G. W. F. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Edited by A. W. Wood and H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                  Offers the first defense of the unified theory of punishment. A very difficult text aimed at more advanced readers.

                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  Capital Punishment

                                                                                                                                  Capital punishment is the topic that has received the most attention from philosophers working on punishment. The classic defense of capital punishment is Mill 1986. There are three articles interrelated that ran in a special issue of the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs. Reiman 1985 argued that even if murderers deserved capital punishment we should not impose it because it ran counter to civilized society. Nathanson 1985 argued that capital punishment should be opposed on the grounds that it arbitrarily selected those who may be deserving, such as through racial discrimination. Van den Haag 1985 concludes the trio arguing contra Reiman 1985 and Nathanson 1985 that their arguments do not succeed and that we should defend capital punishment as a just punishment for criminals. Alexander 1983 offers an important analysis of the problem of executing the innocent by mistake for defenders of capital punishment. Brooks 2004 and Brooks 2011 offer a new argument why retributivists should oppose capital punishment.

                                                                                                                                  • Alexander, Larry. “Retributivism and the Inadvertent Punishment of the Innocent.” Law and Philosophy 2 (1983): 233–246.

                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1007/BF00144449E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                    Offers an important critical analysis of the problem of executing the innocent by mistake for defenders of capital punishment.

                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    • Brooks, T. “Retributivist Arguments against Capital Punishment.” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2004): 188–197.

                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00224.xE-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                      Rejects attempts by others to offer an argument against capital punishment that would be convincing to retributivists. Suggests a new argument that can overcome the problems faced by earlier attempts.

                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      • Brooks, T. “Retribution and Capital Punishment.” In Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy. Edited by M. D. White. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199752232.001.0001E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                        Offers new grounds for why retributivists should oppose capital punishment in the most comprehensive analysis of the subject.

                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        • Mill, J. S. “Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment.” In Applied Ethics. Edited by P. Singer, 97–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                          The most classic defense of capital punishment. Originally a speech presented by J. S. Mill in the House of Commons when he served for a brief time as a member of Parliament.

                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          • Nathanson, S. “Does It Matter if the Death Penalty is Arbitrarily Administered?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1985): 149–164.

                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                            The second part of a three-article symposium on capital punishment. Argues that capital punishment is wrong even where all executed deserve death because those selected among the deserving are chosen arbitrarily.

                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            • Reiman, J. “Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1985): 115–148.

                                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                              The first part of a three-article symposium on capital punishment. Argues that capital punishment should be opposed even if deserved for murderers because it runs counter to a civilized society.

                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              • Van den Haag, E. “Refuting Reiman and Nathanson.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1985): 165–176.

                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                The last part of a three-article symposium on capital punishment. Considers objections to capital punishment by Nathanson 1985 and Reiman 1985 and rejects them. Defends the justice of capital punishment.

                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                back to top

                                                                                                                                                Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.

                                                                                                                                                How to Subscribe

                                                                                                                                                Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions and individuals. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.

                                                                                                                                                Purchase an Ebook Version of This Article

                                                                                                                                                Ebooks of the Oxford Bibliographies Online subject articles are available in North America via a number of retailers including Amazon, vitalsource, and more. Simply search on their sites for Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guides and your desired subject article.

                                                                                                                                                If you would like to purchase an eBook article and live outside North America please email onlinemarketing@oup.com to express your interest.

                                                                                                                                                Article

                                                                                                                                                Up

                                                                                                                                                Down