File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s11572-016-9394-5
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84965062868
- WOS: WOS:000423028800002
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Bennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment
Title | Bennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Christopher Bennett Expression Punishment Retributivism The Apology Ritual |
Issue Date | 2017 |
Publisher | Springer. |
Citation | Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2017, v. 11, p. 661-679 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In this paper, I will critically assess the expressive justification of punishment recently offered by Christopher Bennett in The Apology Ritual and a number of papers. I will first draw a distinction between three conceptions of expression: communicative, motivational, and symbolic. After briefly demonstrating the difficulties of using the first two conceptions of expression to ground punishment and showing that Bennett does not ultimately rely on those two conceptions, I argue that Bennett’s account does not succeed because he fails to establish the following claims: (1) punishment is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing; and (2) punishment is permissible if it is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/227312 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.258 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Chau, SC | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-07-18T09:09:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-07-18T09:09:44Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2017, v. 11, p. 661-679 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1871-9791 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/227312 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In this paper, I will critically assess the expressive justification of punishment recently offered by Christopher Bennett in The Apology Ritual and a number of papers. I will first draw a distinction between three conceptions of expression: communicative, motivational, and symbolic. After briefly demonstrating the difficulties of using the first two conceptions of expression to ground punishment and showing that Bennett does not ultimately rely on those two conceptions, I argue that Bennett’s account does not succeed because he fails to establish the following claims: (1) punishment is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing; and (2) punishment is permissible if it is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Springer. | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Criminal Law and Philosophy | - |
dc.rights | The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI] | - |
dc.subject | Christopher Bennett | - |
dc.subject | Expression | - |
dc.subject | Punishment | - |
dc.subject | Retributivism | - |
dc.subject | The Apology Ritual | - |
dc.title | Bennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Chau, SC: pscchau@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Chau, SC=rp01529 | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s11572-016-9394-5 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84965062868 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 259210 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 11 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 661 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 679 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1871-9805 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000423028800002 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1871-9791 | - |