Definition Of Punishment Research Articles

Punishment Moralism

AbstractIn this paper, I try to reconcile the vulgar (normative) definition of punishment with the positivistic (purely descriptive) definition that separates the ethics of punishment from its definition—punishment positivism. I will argue that although the vulgar definition has critical issues, this does not mean that we should stop using normative concepts in the definition of punishment. I will attempt this reconciliation by considering one of the prime arguments in favour of punishment positivism—namely, definitional stop—and show why it doesn't work. I will proceed by presenting a functional argument in favour of what I call punishment moralism: the idea that punishment should be considered as a response to perceived wrongdoing. This definition, while using normative concepts, still remains descriptive. In this way, I hope to be able to solve the problem of both views by combining their insights.

Crime and punishment; drama and meaning: lessons from On the Genealogy of Morals II

ABSTRACT This paper takes up Nietzsche’s contrast between a relatively enduring ‘drama’ of punishment, which consists in sequences of procedures, and a congeries of often discrepant meanings and purposes of the drama and contrasts it favorably with the distinction between a definition of punishment and a justification for it which received a good deal of attention in the middle of the twentieth century in anglophone philosophical circles. My chief thesis is that the philosophical lesson to be drawn from the widely acknowledge failure of efforts to further the philosophical understanding of punishment by the latter route is Nietzsche’s: that the concept in question and the practices that fall under it are fundamentally insusceptible to ahistorical methods. I argue for the thesis proper in the first section of the paper, and explore consequences of it for our understanding of the connection between punishment and justice in the second.

Overlapping Penalties in the Jurisprudence of the Four Schools of Thought: A Comparative Jurisprudential Study

The study of overlapping crimes and their punishment in Islamic jurisprudence deals with the issue of one person committing more than one crime, either at one time or in successive and different times. This crime may be of one gender, such as murder or theft, and a person may commit multiple crimes, such as stealing and drinking alcohol. This research looked at the opinions of the jurists in the penalties of such crimes. The research concluded that the jurists unanimously agreed that the criminal should not be punished if he committed several crimes of the same sex, except for one punishment only. For example, if the unmarried person commits the crimes of adultery and defamation, then one punishment is imposed on him, which is the punishment for adultery. The penalty of slander is included in it. If adultery is punished and then slandered after that, then the penalty of slander is applied to it as well. Overlapping means that the penalty for the lesser crime is included in the penalty for the major crime if they are committed together. In studying this subject, I followed the descriptive, analytical and comparative approach, where I explained the concept of overlap, its location, causes, and wording, the definition of punishment and its types, its wisdom and conditions, the penalties sections, the combination of crimes of one sex, the combination of crimes of different races, and how to fulfill multiple penalties, the principle Applications of multiple penalties with a statement of the sayings of the four schools of thought in each issue and a statement of the most correct of them.

Legislative definition of punishment in the form of a fine as the basisof its criminal - legal impact

Legislative definition of punishment in the form of a fine as the basisof its criminal - legal impact

EVOLUTION OF PUNISHMENT IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW:PROBLEMS OF CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENT

The article analyzes the evolution of punishment in Russian criminal law and scientific doctrine. The article considers the dynamics of development and improvement of the definition of punishment in the Soviet and Russian criminal legislation. The refusal of punishment in punishment is analyzed, which is explained by the development of several trends of mitigation of punishment. Changes in many provisions on punishment confirm that this institution has a social and legal necessity and importance for society and the state. Is considered a long process of exclusion from the punishment uncharacteristic of regulations and the formation of the criminal code of legal structure, where the punishment has ceased to be an obligatory consequence of the crime, as embodied and other measures of criminal-legal nature, like legal consequences of the crime. The essence of criminal punishment is recognized as a historically variable category, since it is determined by the objectives of criminal policy implemented by the state. Punishment includes legal restriction of the person, its rights and freedoms, but it is caused by system interaction with other measures of criminal-legal character.

EVOLUTION OF PUNISHMENT IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW:PROBLEMS OF CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENT

The article analyzes the evolution of punishment in Russian criminal law and scientific doctrine. The article considers the dynamics of development and improvement of the definition of punishment in the Soviet and Russian criminal legislation. The refusal of punishment in punishment is analyzed, which is explained by the development of several trends of mitigation of punishment. Changes in many provisions on punishment confirm that this institution has a social and legal necessity and importance for society and the state. Is considered a long process of exclusion from the punishment uncharacteristic of regulations and the formation of the criminal code of legal structure, where the punishment has ceased to be an obligatory consequence of the crime, as embodied and other measures of criminal-legal nature, like legal consequences of the crime. The essence of criminal punishment is recognized as a historically variable category, since it is determined by the objectives of criminal policy implemented by the state. Punishment includes legal restriction of the person, its rights and freedoms, but it is caused by system interaction with other measures of criminal-legal character.

Research of Criminal Punishment in Russian Dissertation Theses: Key Trends in 2010-2019

The article aims to reveal key trends in the studies of the problems of criminal punishment based on the analysis of Russian dissertation theses in the past decade (2010–2019). The authors stress that the problems of punishment are «eternal» for Russian and Western doctrines of criminal law, although there is some difference in their research trends. The authors conclude that Russian doctrine preserves continuity in its definition of punishment as a major category of criminal law, as well as of its attributes and goals. In 1990–2000s there were some attempts to renounce the penal nature of punishment. In the past decades this «bias» has been overcome and practically all authors recognize the priority of the penal character (content) of criminal punishment. At the same time, the doctrine incorporated new ideas regarding the understanding of the goals of punishment, their hierarchy and the actual possibilities of achieving them. The authors note that the positive feature of the Russian doctrine is the substantiation of the «functional» theory of building a system of punishments in criminal legislation. On the other hand, researchers have come to a disappointing conclusion regarding the breach in the orderly structure of the system of punishments. The analysis of Russian dissertation theses has shown that in 2010–2019 most attention was focused on «final» punishments (capital punishment and life imprisonment), imprisonment for a certain period of time, some punishments not connected with the deprivation of liberty (limitation of liberty, obligatory work). The authors point out that there remains a discrepancy in the understanding of the legal nature, purpose and effectiveness of these types of punishment (primarily, capital punishment, which is preserved in criminal legislation).

Arguing Against the Expressive Function of Punishment: Is the Standard Account that Insufficient?

This paper critically appraises the arguments that have been offered for what can be called ‘the expressive function of punishment’. According to this view, what distinguishes punishment from other kinds of non-punitive hard treatment is that punishment conveys a censorial/reprobative message about what the punished has done, and that this expressive function should therefore be accepted as part of the nature and definition of punishment. Against this view, this papers argues that the standard account of punishment, according to which punishment is a kind of hard treatment that is imposed on an alleged offender in response to her alleged wrongdoing, can already properly account for punishment and distinguish it from other kinds of hard treatment when it is properly clarified and understood. Thus there is no need to accept the expressive function of punishment in addition to the standard account when it comes to the nature and definition of punishment.

Punishing Problems; Simple Solution

Boonin’s The Problem of Punishment is an intriguing, systematic, and thoughtprovoking piece of philosophy. The central claim of the book is straightforward: punishment is unjustified, and so we should dispense with the practice. The structure of the book is also straightforward. Boonin begins by setting out why punishment is problematic, and goes on to address a number of possible solutions to the problem— variously, consequentialist, retributivist, and some more specific solutions. None of these is adequate. He then considers the appeal to necessity (‘punishment is a necessary evil’), and argues that it fails, because there is at least one viable alternative: ‘pure restitution’, according to which ‘the state should not punish people for breaking the law... and... should compel people who break the law to compensate their victims for the harms they have wrongfully caused them’ (218). His treatment of the various justificatory attempts is thorough, and offers some interesting responses to familiar proposals. For instance, in response to the Moorean attempt to justify retributivism with reference to our intuitions about cases, Boonin argues that ‘appealing to the fact that people already believe that punishment is justified in these cases cannot serve as a basis for solving the problem’ (89). And he does a persuasive job of explaining why it is that punishment is problematic, and why existing attempts to justify punishment are unsatisfactory. The first part of the book focuses on developing a definition of punishment. He argues that legal punishment should be defined as ‘authorized intentional reprobative retributive harm’ (26) that is, harm inflicted intentionally, by an authorized agent of the state acting in his or her official capacity, because the punishee has done a legally prohibited act, and where this harm expresses official disproval of the punishee for having done such an act. Punishment is problematic, he suggests, because it involves intentionally harming one group of people: those who have broken laws. We need to explain

Why Punish the Guilty?

There is general acceptance that those who break the law must be punished; however, not all agree as to why this is necessary. Some argue punishment is necessary to reform criminals, others to deter criminals, and others because you deserve it, whether punishment reforms or deters. Stripped of metaphors, this paper argues that punishment is retribution, but that a distinction must be made between the definition of punishment as retribution and its justification, if a case is to be made for its moral justification. Thus the most important question the paper raises relates to the justification of punishment as retribution.

Administration of punishment in school

Giving consideration to punishment, one of the inevitable elements of school discipline, always reactivates the issue of punishment administration and its effects in school setting. Punishment is administered by a beforehand-determined intention, its general and final goal being the attempt to make a child change his/her behavior so as to more successfully take part in school life. The issue of how much it is justifiable to administer punishment, as a way of directing child?s behavior, is not only raised in professional discussions but occurs as a personal dilemma with parents, teachers and all those involved in child upbringing. The definition of punishment contains certain incompatible elements in attitudes, which is reflected in punishment administration within different social contexts. Based on the analysis of research results, the paper discusses all the elements the teacher should be well acquainted with, influencing the effectiveness of punishment. The effects of punishment administration depend, among other things, on the type of punishment, way in which a person experiences and perceives punishment and the way of administering it. Prior to punishment administration, as a means of directing child?s behavior factors influencing successfulness of punishment should be established consistency in punishment administration, postponement of punishment intensity of punishment, explanation for punishment administration, nature of interrelations between a child and a person punishing him/her.

Monkeywrenching as Punishment?

This work examines acts of monkeywrenching, like the Oct. 19, 1998 arson at Vail, as punitive acts. The purpose of this effort is to see if the application of a broad, sociological definition of punishment to acts of this type can reveal hidden or infrequently discussed aspects of punish ment as a social mechanism, as well as monkeywrenching as a social act. Following a brief introduction, definitions for punishment (emphasizing its understanding as a social mechanism), and extra-legal alternatives to environmental protection (an ad hoc category created to house acts of monkeywrenching) are provided. The paper then looks at acts of mon keywrenching with reference to three concepts that are central to punish ment: 1) the pain of punishment; 2) the rule-bound nature of punishment; 3) the authority to punish. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the problems associated with monkeywrenching's use as a punitive alter native to environmental protection.

Spare the rod and spoil the child. Is this a sensible justification for the use of punishment in child rearing?

This paper examines the validity of the well-used proverb Spare the rod and spoil the child. To do this, the original form of the proverb from the Bible is compared with the modern form, and some significant differences are highlighted. The definition of punishment is considered, and the differences between punishment and corporal punishment are examined. Punishment is explored in some detail with attention given to the criteria that need to be satisfied in order for punishment to be effective. Discrepancies in the literature concerning these criteria are pointed out, making punishment a complex issue. The negative effects of punishment are significant with links to social problems such as teenage delinquency and violence. Reference is made to cultures where corporal punishment has been banned and the effects of this action. Given the problems associated with punishment programs, especially those being used in families, alternatives to punishment are discussed. Finally, an alternative form of the proverb to the current adaptation is offered.

Punishment: Civil Style — A Comment

I am honoured and pleased to comment on the paper on “Punishment Civil Style” by my good friend Marc Galanter, with whose basic thesis I am in complete agreement. I would take as my starting point and, indeed, emphasize, Galanter's definition of punishment as the “imposition of a harm, injury, deprivation or other bad thing on someone on the ground of some commission of some offence. The infliction of harm on the offender may be viewed as a goal (or a proximate to a goal of justice) or it may be viewed instrumentally as a mean to social betterment through rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, reassurance, and so forth”.Galanter well points out that, as such, punishment is not limited to the criminal justice system, but is employed also in other societal systems, including that of civil justice.Yet, I fear that he may mislead us in focusing in his paper so heavily on punitive damages, which he maintains “are the most visible and clearly legitimated manifestation” of the principle of “civil punishment”.

Toward a Constitutional Definition of Punishment

Toward a Constitutional Definition of Punishment