File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment

TitleBennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment
Authors
KeywordsChristopher Bennett
Expression
Punishment
Retributivism
The Apology Ritual
Issue Date2017
PublisherSpringer.
Citation
Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2017, v. 11, p. 661-679 How to Cite?
AbstractIn 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/227312
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.7
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.258
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChau, SC-
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-18T09:09:44Z-
dc.date.available2016-07-18T09:09:44Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationCriminal Law and Philosophy, 2017, v. 11, p. 661-679-
dc.identifier.issn1871-9791-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/227312-
dc.description.abstractIn 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.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer.-
dc.relation.ispartofCriminal Law and Philosophy-
dc.rightsThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI]-
dc.subjectChristopher Bennett-
dc.subjectExpression-
dc.subjectPunishment-
dc.subjectRetributivism-
dc.subjectThe Apology Ritual-
dc.titleBennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailChau, SC: pscchau@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityChau, SC=rp01529-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11572-016-9394-5-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84965062868-
dc.identifier.hkuros259210-
dc.identifier.volume11-
dc.identifier.spage661-
dc.identifier.epage679-
dc.identifier.eissn1871-9805-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000423028800002-
dc.identifier.issnl1871-9791-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats