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 only plausible justification for the costs of crimina... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The only plausible justification for the costs of criminal punishment is that it has large instrumental benefits in terms of crime prevention.

    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.Criminal punishment imposes significant costs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is implausible that these costs can be justified simply by the importance of punishing wrongdoers as they deserve to be punished.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Retributive desert is itself a freestanding moral reason for punishment, not merely an intuition requiring instrumental backing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant, Moore, and Husak himself elsewhere argue that punishing the guilty is intrinsically required by respect for persons as rational agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If desert grounds an obligation rather than merely a permission to punish, instrumental benefits become sufficient but not necessary for justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Expressive and communicative theories justify punishment as moral address to the offender, independent of deterrent consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Duff's Penance account and Feinberg's expressivism show punishment can be justified by its meaning rather than its causal effects on crime rates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A justification grounded in legitimate censure and moral communication does not collapse into instrumentalism even when crime prevention benefits are marginal.
      ?

      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 justification grounded in legitimate censure and moral communication does not ...Criminal punishment imposes significant costs.Duff's Penance account and Feinberg's expressivism show punishment can be justif...Expressive and communicative theories justify punishment as moral address to the...
    +4 moreShow less
    If desert grounds an obligation rather than merely a permission to punish, instr...It is implausible that these costs can be justified simply by the importance of ...Kant, Moore, and Husak himself elsewhere argue that punishing the guilty is intr...Retributive desert is itself a freestanding moral reason for punishment, not mer...

    Similar

    The compelling rationale (general justifying aim) for punishment lies ...80%There are good reasons — to do with the costs, both material and moral...80%It is implausible that these costs can be justified simply by the impo...80%The positive reasons for punishment must appeal to some other goods th...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-retributive
    Husak 2000; Cahill 2011; Lippke 2019
    View source passageHide passage
    It is implausible that these costs can be justified simply by the importance of punishing wrongdoers as they deserve to be punished. The only plausible way to justify these costs is if criminal punishment has large instrumental benefits in terms of crime prevention (Husak 2000; Cahill 2011; Lippke 2019).
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises are explicitly stated in the source passage, and together they rationally support the conclusion by eliminating desert-based justification and leaving instrumental crime prevention as the only plausible remaining justification.

    Confidence: Clear argument with explicit premises and conclusion.

    Details

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