The moral justification of retributive punishment by reference to the notion of balance
There is a school of retributive punishment theory that seeks to justify punishment by reference to the notion of balance. Retributive theories typically refer to the past crime as being the single event justifying intervention. The specific retributive theories considered claim that punishment is justified because it restores a rightful equilibrium upset by that crime. I contend that this school of âbalance theoriesâ can be traced within enlightenment philosophy through the works of Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel to the present day. It is my further contention that none of the theories considered is successful in justifying punishment. Both Kant and Hegel rely on formal notions of balance and fail to prove that punishment is in fact an appropriate mechanism for the restoration of equilibrium. The twentieth century writers propose a substantive notion of balance in terms of rights/freedoms wrongly appropriated by the criminal (and hence denied to all other members of society). They claim that punishment is justified because of its ability to re-appropriate wrongly taken rights/freedoms, hence restoring the rightful equilibrium. I contend that these theorists fail to justify punishment because they fail
Brown, Stephen Paul
Alan Gewirth; Human rights
The moral justification of retributive punishment by reference to the notion of balance. There is a school of retributive punishment theory that seeks to justify punishment by reference to the notion of balance. Retributive theories typically refer to the past crime as being the single event justifying intervention. The specific retributive theories considered claim that punishment is justified because it restores a rightful equilibrium upset by that crime. I contend that this school of âbalance theoriesâ can be traced within enlightenment philosophy through the works of Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel to the present day. It is my further contention that none of the theories considered is successful in justifying punishment. Both Kant and Hegel rely on formal notions of balance and fail to prove that punishment is in fact an appropriate mechanism for the restoration of equilibrium. The twentieth century writers propose a substantive notion of balance in terms of rights/freedoms wrongly appropriated by the criminal (and hence denied to all other members of society). They claim that punishment is justified because of its ability to re-appropriate wrongly taken rights/freedoms, hence restoring the rightful equilibrium. I contend that these theorists fail to justify punishment because they fail
moral justification retributive punishment reference notion balance school retributive punishment theory seek justify punishment reference notion balance retributive theory typically refer past crime single_event justify intervention specific retributive theory consider claim punishment justify rightful equilibrium crime contend school balance theory trace within enlightenment philosophy work kant hegel contention none theory consider successful punishment kant_hegel rely formal notion balance fail prove punishment fact appropriate mechanism restoration equilibrium writer propose substantive notion balance term rights wrongly appropriate criminal hence deny member_society claim punishment justified ability appropriate wrongly take rights hence restore rightful equilibrium contend theorist fail justify punishment fail