Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading 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

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Antony Duff's communicative theory of punishment holds th... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Foreseeable harmful effects on a criminal's family that result from imprisonment do not constitute punishment.

    Antony Duff's communicative theory of punishment holds that punishment constitutes the whole complex of burdens imposed, not merely those narrowly intended by the punisher.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Punishment's moral legitimacy depends on communicating censure to the offender, requiring holistic burden accounting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unintended harms (lost employment, family rupture) are causally and morally inseparable from the punishment itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Narrow intent-based definitions allow states to evade responsibility for predictable collateral damage to offenders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Collateral harms often depend on offenders' contingent circumstances, not the punishment's inherent communicative content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Including all causal burdens makes punishment assessment subjective and inconsistent across similarly situated offenders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The state cannot be held responsible for every downstream consequence; limiting scope to intended burdens is administratively necessary.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Justice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Collateral harms often depend on offenders' contingent circumstances, not the pu...Foreseeable harmful effects on a criminal's family that result from imprisonment...Including all causal burdens makes punishment assessment subjective and inconsis...Narrow intent-based definitions allow states to evade responsibility for predict...
    +3 moreShow less
    Punishment's moral legitimacy depends on communicating censure to the offender, ...The state cannot be held responsible for every downstream consequence; limiting ...Unintended harms (lost employment, family rupture) are causally and morally inse...

    Details

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