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
    It can be justified to incapacitate dangerous offenders e... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It can be justified to incapacitate dangerous offenders even if they are not morally responsible for what they have done or for the danger they present.

    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.It can arguably be justified to quarantine someone carrying a transmissible disease even if that person is not morally responsible for the threat they pose.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Incapacitating dangerous offenders can be modeled on the same justification as public health quarantines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quarantine confines persons solely to prevent transmission of a biological agent, not to respond to any action or judgment about character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Incarcerating offenders—even those lacking moral responsibility—necessarily responds to their agency and conduct, making the quarantine analogy structurally disanalogous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating persons as dangerous objects to be warehoused based on predicted future conduct violates Kantian constraints against using persons merely as means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes framework holds that excusing an agent from moral responsibility demands we adopt the 'objective stance' toward them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The objective stance, as Strawson argued, is itself a form of exclusion from the moral community that cannot be fully reconciled with punitive or quasi-punitive incapacitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Incapacitating a non-responsible agent while maintaining coercive institutional force against them is internally incoherent within any framework that grounds legitimate detention in agency.
      ?

      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

    Incapacitating a non-responsible agent while maintaining coercive institutional ...Incapacitating dangerous offenders can be modeled on the same justification as p...Incarcerating offenders—even those lacking moral responsibility—necessarily resp...It can arguably be justified to quarantine someone carrying a transmissible dise...
    +4 moreShow less
    P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes framework holds that excusing an agent from m...Quarantine confines persons solely to prevent transmission of a biological agent...The objective stance, as Strawson argued, is itself a form of exclusion from the...Treating persons as dangerous objects to be warehoused based on predicted future...

    Similar

    Prohibitions on murder and assault can be justified both as enforcing ...81%Punishment can incapacitate potential offenders.79%Groups can be held morally responsible for harm even if they are not g...78%Incapacitating dangerous offenders can be modeled on the same justific...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: legal-punishment
    View source passageHide passage
    A third alternative approach that has gained some prominence in recent years is grounded in belief in free will scepticism, the view that human behaviour is a result of free will but of determinism, luck, or chance, and thus that the notions of moral responsibility and desert on which many accounts of punishment (especially retributivist theories) depend are misguided (see s. 5). As an alternative to holding offenders responsible, or giving them their just deserts, some free will sceptics (see Pereboom 2013; Caruso 2021) instead endorse incapacitating dangerous offenders on a model similar to ...

    Details

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