The right of the punisher seems to depend on some notion that the agent that committed the crime deserves to be punished. So maybe then if he's saying retributivism that is motivated by some form of content or Rawlsian notion cannot stand and he's limiting it to that, then it makes more sense. I feel like there are other versions of retributivism as a theory of punishment that could just be limited to just saying you the state has the right to punish anybody who deserves that punishment. You don't need to have arrived at your judgment of dessert in a content way. It might not be vulnerable to this kind of critique, although it also might depending on how our reactive attitudes
Here’s an episode with something for both of us – a healthy serving of Kantian rationalism for David with a dollop of Marxist criminology for Tamler. We discuss and then argue about Jeffrie Murphy’s 1971 paper “Marxism and Retribution.” For Murphy, utilitarianism is non-starter as a theory of punishment because it can’t justify the right of the state to inflict suffering on criminals. Retributivism respects the autonomy of individuals so it can justify punishment in principle – but not in practice, at least not in a capitalist system. So it ends up offering a transcendental sanction of the status quo. We debate the merits of Murphy’s attack on Rawls and social contract theory under capitalism, along with the Marxist analysis of the roots of criminal behavior.
Plus – the headline says it all: Blame The Brain, Not Bolsonaro, For Brazil’s Riots.
Sponsored By:
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: