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
    Foreseeable harmful effects on a criminal's family that r... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    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.The punisher must inflict hard treatment intentionally, not as an accident and not as a side-effect of pursuing some other end.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The harms to a criminal's family from imprisonment are foreseeable side-effects, not purposely inflicted as part of the punishment for the crime.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The doctrine of double effect does not exculpate agents from moral responsibility when foreseeable harm is severe, systematic, and disproportionate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A state that predictably devastates innocent families through incarceration policies inflicts de facto punishment on those families, regardless of declared intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between intended and merely foreseen effects cannot bear full moral weight when the foreseen effects are structurally guaranteed outcomes of the punitive system itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If family members of the incarcerated systematically suffer economic ruin, social stigma, and psychological harm as constitutive outcomes of imprisonment, the state's act of punishing cannot be cleanly severed from those effects.
      ?

      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

    A state that predictably devastates innocent families through incarceration poli...Antony Duff's communicative theory of punishment holds that punishment constitut...If family members of the incarcerated systematically suffer economic ruin, socia...The distinction between intended and merely foreseen effects cannot bear full mo...
    +3 moreShow less
    The doctrine of double effect does not exculpate agents from moral responsibilit...The harms to a criminal's family from imprisonment are foreseeable side-effects,...The punisher must inflict hard treatment intentionally, not as an accident and n...

    Similar

    The harms to a criminal's family from imprisonment are foreseeable sid...93%The claim that 'crime' entails punishment as the appropriate response ...76%A criminal conviction does not entail the kind of materially burdensom...76%The punishment of those who commit crimes is permissible.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-retributive
    View source passageHide passage
    Second, the punisher must inflict hard treatment intentionally, not as an accident, and not as a side-effect of pursuing some other end. For example, while sending a criminal to prison often has foreseeable harmful effects on the criminal's family, retributivists would say that those harms do not constitute punishment, not unless they are purposely inflicted as part of the punishment for the crime.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises faithfully reflect the passage's reasoning: the intentionality requirement (premise 1) combined with the fact that harms to the family are side-effects rather than purposely inflicted (premise 2) logically entails the conclusion that such harms do not constitute punishment.

    Confidence: The argument is clearly laid out: the definition of punishment requires intentional infliction, and family harms are side-effects, so they don't count as punishment.

    Details

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