The Failure of Trust-Based Retributivism

Law and Philosophy 22 (6):561-575 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Punishment stands in need of justification because it involves intentionally harming offenders. Trust-based retributivists attempt to justify punishment by appeal to the offender’s violation of the victim’s trust, maintaining that the state is entitled to punish offenders as a means of restoring conditions of trust to their pre-offense levels. I argue that trust-based retributivism fails on two counts. First, it entails the permissibility of punishing the legally innocent and fails to justify the punishment of some offenders. Second, it cannot satisfactorily explain why it is morally permissible for the government to intentionally harm offenders.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

''Deterrent Punishment and Respect for Persons''.Zachary Hoskins - 2011 - Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 8 (2):369-384.
Do Offenders Deserve Proportionate Punishments?Göran Duus-Otterström - 2021 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):463-480.
Retributivism In Extremis.Douglas Husak - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (1):3-31.
Kant on Why Criminal Offenders Must Be Punished.Mark Pickering - 2022 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 60 (4):637-663.
The Subjectivist Critique of Proportionality.Adam J. Kolber - 2019 - In Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Springer Verlag. pp. 571-595.
Retributivism and trust.Susan Dimock - 1997 - Law and Philosophy 16 (1):37–62.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
476 (#58,516)

6 months
65 (#88,290)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Z. Korman
University of California, Santa Barbara

References found in this work

Trust and antitrust.Annette Baier - 1986 - Ethics 96 (2):231-260.
What Do Women Want in a Moral Theory?Annette Baier - 1997 - In Roger Crisp & Michael Slote (eds.), Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Retributivism and trust.Susan Dimock - 1997 - Law and Philosophy 16 (1):37–62.

Add more references