Abstract
Gregg Caruso’s Rejecting Retributivism is a well-written compendium of arguments against retributivism and in favor of a public-health model for dealing with potential criminality. Nevertheless, I still think, even after reading Caruso, that there is an important place for punishment, based on the retributive notions of culpability and deserved blame, in our criminal justice system. I proceed in three parts. First, I point out where his views about our potential to have the kind of free will necessary for basic desert of blame are weakest: his response to compatibilism. Second, I argue that his argument against retributivism proves too much: it radically and implausibly rules out holding people responsible in any meaningful way. Third, I argue that he operates with a misguided conception of the basis for blame. I offer a better one that works well with compatibilism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
