Retributivism and the Dynamic Desert Model: Three Challenges to Dagan and Roberts

Criminal Justice Ethics 40 (1):56-67 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A traditional assumption in retributivist thinking is the view that an offender's desert is determined exclusively on the basis of the gravity of the crime committed. However, this assumption has r...

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,448

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Retributivist Theory of Punishment: Some Comments.Adebayo Aina - 2018 - Balkan Journal of Philosophy 10 (1):63-70.
Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment.George Schedler - 2011 - Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (3):240-266.
Desert of What? On Murphy’s Reluctant Retributivism.Linda Radzik - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (1):161-173.
Doing Without Desert.David Sussman - 2020 - Criminal Justice Ethics 39 (3):211-221.
Rehabilitating Retributivism.Mitchell N. Berman - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (1):83-108.
Can a Machine Sentence Justly?Aziz Z. Huq - 2022 - Criminal Justice Ethics 41 (3):268-277.
Desert as a Limiting Condition.Steven Sverdlik - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (2):209-225.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-03-12

Downloads
24 (#897,825)

6 months
8 (#549,811)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Censure and Sanctions.Andrew Von Hirsch - 1996 - Law and Philosophy 15 (4):407-415.
Crime, Guilt and Punishment.Chin Liew Ten - 1988 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 178 (4):522-522.

Add more references