Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading account…

Carmelics

A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

Navigate

Topics
Search
Recent Changes
Contribute
How It Works
Glossary
Thinkers
Contributors
About
Statistics
Terms
Privacy

Database

Statements: —
Perspectives: —
Topics: —

Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

A theory of punishment must also address its rationale an... — Carmelics

Home/Justice & Punishment

History Edit See Inverse

A theory of punishment must also address its rationale and justification in the context of international criminal law, not only domestic criminal law.

Justice & Punishment

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Theoretical discussions of criminal punishment and its justification typically focus on domestic criminal law.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.We cannot assume that a normative theory of domestic criminal punishment can simply be read across into the context of international criminal law.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.The imposition of punishment in the international context raises distinctive conceptual and normative issues.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.The foundational justifications for punishment—retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation—apply universally regardless of jurisdictional scale.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.International criminal law is reducible to domestic legal principles applied to actors who cross borders, requiring no sui generis theory.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Hart's general framework in 'Punishment and Responsibility' deliberately abstracts from jurisdictional particulars to capture punishment's essential structure.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

1.Demanding a separate theory for every jurisdictional context commits philosophy to an unprincipled proliferation of domain-specific frameworks.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Rawls and Kant grounded punishment's legitimacy in the social contract and rational agency respectively—neither condition is altered by international context.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Topics

Justice & Punishment

Related

Demanding a separate theory for every jurisdictional context commits philosophy ...Hart's general framework in 'Punishment and Responsibility' deliberately abstrac...International criminal law is reducible to domestic legal principles applied to ...Rawls and Kant grounded punishment's legitimacy in the social contract and ratio...

+4 moreShow less

The foundational justifications for punishment—retribution, deterrence, rehabili...The imposition of punishment in the international context raises distinctive con...Theoretical discussions of criminal punishment and its justification typically f...We cannot assume that a normative theory of domestic criminal punishment can sim...

Similar

We cannot assume that a normative theory of domestic criminal punishme...91%Theoretical discussions of criminal punishment and its justification t...84%The imposition of punishment in the international context raises disti...82%Retributive justice is an appealing theory of punishment.81%

Source

AI-extracted

SEP: legal-punishment

View source passageHide passage

The question of whether, and how, legal punishment can be justified has long been a central concern of legal, moral, and political philosophy: what could justify a state in using the apparatus of the law to inflict intentionally burdensome treatment on its citizens? Radically different answers to this question are offered by consequentialist and by retributivist theorists — and by those who seek to incorporate consequentialist and retributivist considerations in ‘mixed’ theories of punishment. Meanwhile, abolitionist theorists argue that we should aim to replace legal punishment rather than to...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit