Mehr lesen
Informationen zum Autor Michael Tonry is Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Minnesota Law School, and Senior Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Free University Amsterdam. Klappentext For nearly two centuries in the United States, the punishment of crime was largely aimed, in theory and in practice, at prevention, rehabilitation or incapacitation, and deterrence. In the mid-1970s, a sharp-and some argued permanent-shift occurred. Punishment in the criminal justice system became first and foremost about retribution. Retribution trumped rehabilitation; proportionality outweighed prevention. The retributivist sea change was short-lived, however. After a few decades, some policy makers returned tentatively to individualized approaches to punishment, launching initiatives like drug courts and programs for treatment and reentry. Others promoted policies that retained the rhetoric but betrayed the theory-punishment in proportion to culpability-of retributivism, resulting in mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes-and-you're-out laws, "dangerous offender" and "sexual predator" laws, "truth in sentencing," and life without the possibility of parole. Zusammenfassung A collection of essays by major figures in punishment theory, law, and philosophy that reconsiders the popularity and prospects of retributivism, the notion that punishment is morally justified because people have behaved wrongly. Inhaltsverzeichnis Preface One: Can Twenty-first Century Punishment Policies be Justified in Principle? Michael Tonry, University of Minnesota Two: What Does Wrongdoing Deserve? John Kleinig, CUNY Three: Is Twenty-first Century Punishment Post-Desert? Matt Matravers, York University Four: Responsibility, Restoration, and Retribution R. A. Duff, University of Minnesota Five: Punishment and Desert-adjusted Utilitarianism Jesper Ryberg, Roskilde University, Copenhagen Six: The Future of State Punishment: The Role of Public Opinion in Sentencing Julian V. Roberts, Oxford University Seven: A Political Theory of Imprisonment for Public Protection Peter Ramsay, London School of Economics Eight: Terror as a Theory of Punishment Alice Ristroph, Seton Hall University Nine: Can Above-desert Penalties Be Justified by Competing Deontological Theories? Richard S. Frase, University of Minnesota Ten: Never Mind the Pain; It's a Measure! Justifying Measures as Part of the Dutch Bifurcated System of Sanctions Jan de Keijser, University of Leiden Eleven: Retributivism, Proportionality, and the Challenge of the Drug Court Movement Douglas Husak, Rutgers University Twelve: Drug Treatment Courts as Communicative Punishment Michael M. O'Hear, Marquette University Thirteen: Reflections on Punishment Futures: The Desert-Model Debate and the Importance of the Criminal Law Context Andreas von Hirsch, Cambridge University ...
