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
    The compelling rationale (general justifying aim) for pun... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The justification of punishment requires a mixed or hybrid account that combines consequentialist and nonconsequentialist considerations.

    The compelling rationale (general justifying aim) for punishment lies in its beneficial effects.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    The justification of punishment requires a mixed or hybrid account that combines...The pursuit of that aim must be constrained by nonconsequentialist principles th...The question of punishment's justification is in fact several different question...These constraining considerations (e.g., forbidding deliberate punishment of the...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    The positive reasons for punishment must appeal to some other goods th...85%The only plausible justification for the costs of criminal punishment ...80%There are good reasons — to do with the costs, both material and moral...80%These constraining considerations (e.g., forbidding deliberate punishm...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: legal-punishment
    View source passageHide passage
    We should not assume, however, that there is only one question of justification, which can receive just one answer. As Hart famously pointed out (Hart 1968: 1–27), we must distinguish at least three justificatory issues. First, what compelling reason is there to create and maintain a system of punishment: what good can it achieve, what duty can it fulfil, what moral demand can it satisfy? (Hart termed this the question of punishment's ‘general justifying aim’, although the term may be misleading in that talk of ‘aims’ may seem to privilege a consequentialist answer to the question, whereas the...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective