An analysis of the philosophy of plato applied to the american criminal justice system
The most problematic kinds of wrongs for liberal retributivists are moralistic or paternalistic wrongs. The dimension of mens rea also matters for determining whether conduct can serve as a morally appropriate basis for punishment Feinberg — If citizens refuse, they must be punished.
Platos theory of law
Since the modelling can be done differently, we have a family of contractarian theories of justice, three of whose most important members are the theories of Gauthier, Rawls and Scanlon. And if called for as a matter of fairness, it is unclear why fairness does not require the other accommodations that Kolber notes and that nonetheless seem counter-intuitive. This reading denies that 5. Justice may still require that C be given treatment of a certain kind, but that will be justice in its non-comparative guise. In modern debates, principles of distributive justice are applied to social institutions such as property and tax systems, which are understood as producing distributive outcomes across large societies, or even the world as a whole. Because physical education is meant to provide military training, sports will be modified to emphasize this. Raphael, D. Another Rawls-inspired suggestion is that animals lack the necessary moral powers, in particular the capacity to act on principles of justice themselves. That is because often we have no idea which actions we are about to perform. Thus he suggests that, at least in developed societies, people have special reason to prioritise liberty over the other goods and to ensure that it is equally distributed: he argues that this is essential to safeguard their self-respect. The guardians of the law are made up of thirty-seven citizens aged at least fifty. The argument of the previous paragraph was an argument that HPP should be followed. To criminalize trivialities—in pursuit of preventive ends—is to drain criminal proceedings of their intrinsic value Duff b. We can add those that exist ex post—once crime has been committed.
But the view that it wrongs victims not to punish wrongdoers confuses vengeance, which is victim-centered, with retributivism, which is agent-centered: concerned with giving the wrongdoer the punishment he deserves see Paul Robinson's contrast between vengeful and deontological conceptions of deserved punishment.
One challenge is to identify the relevant baseline. It is worth emphasizing that such a scale would not have universal application.
However, even if such losses can, as a class, be justified as retributive punishments, individual instances of them may be substantively unjustifiable see, e.
Rawls, as we saw above, argued that economic justice meant arranging social and economic inequalities to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and in formulating the principle in this way he assumed that some inequalities might serve as incentives to greater production that would also raise the position of the worst-off group in society.
Plato laws book 3
Because other bodies of law sometimes punish, and because punishment typically—perhaps necessarily—expresses censure Feinberg , the expressive function is at least partly shared. Hence, the inclusion of lot casting is a concession to the egalitarian sentiment found in democracies. Third, for his time, Plato is actually progressive in his views of women. But this assumes that the computer can be returned intact. Now it is time to consider some equally important contrasts. A false moral claim has been made… The retributivist demands that the false claim be corrected. Some vague degree of cardinality therefore seems to be called for, punishing grave wrongs with heavy penalties and minor wrongs with light penalties. Its remote location will deter the influence of visitors, who might corrupt the culture of Magnesia. We cannot say what she would have chosen to do in a counterfactual world in which she was tone deaf. Might there be other reasons why animals cannot make claims of justice on us? Conformity to RL is a matter of degree. If retributivism were based on the thought that wrongdoers' suffering is good in itself, then punishment is not necessary as a bridge connecting the suffering and the individual bad acts. But it is to say that the connection between trial and punishment is not merely instrumental. The positive desert claim holds that wrongdoers morally deserve punishment for their wrongful acts. This view may move too quickly to invoke utilitarian or consequentialist considerations.
A coin toss is a fair way of deciding who starts a game, but neither the Blues nor the Reds have a claim of justice to bat first or kick off. This portrays the contracting parties as starting out from the presumption that income and wealth should be distributed equally, but then recognizing that all can benefit by permitting certain inequalities to arise.
But as Hart put it, retributive justice appears to be a mysterious piece of moral alchemy in which the combination of the two evils of moral wickedness and suffering are transmuted into good.
Plato law and justice
It is a characteristic mark of justice that the obligations it creates should be enforceable: we can be made to deliver what is due to others as a matter of justice, either by the recipients themselves or by third parties. If responsibility is answerability, and we are answerable for crimes, the conditions of criminal responsibility and the conditions of criminal liability are one and the same. Why would a rational, powerful, and good god allow for evil? In democracies without law, demagogues leaders appealing to emotions took over. None has families. The alternative labels also risk confusion with the fact that the positive reasons for punishment that retributivists generally accept can be stronger or weaker. But even where a procedure has been shaped by a concern that it should produce substantively just outcomes, it may still have special properties that make it intrinsically just. The framers wanted to create a national government free of tyranny, governed by the rule of law. That C may admit of exceptions does not, of course, show that C is not generally sound. This was the first of the three objections raised above. Plato: Laws Vol. However, these oddities can be explained away if we consider three things.
based on 93 review