Responsibility and revision: a Levinasian argument for the abolition of capital punishment
- Benjamin S. Yost
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Most readers believe that it is difficult, verging on the impossible, to extract concrete prescriptions from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Although this view is largely correct, Levinas’ philosophy can, with some assistance, generate specific duties on the part of legal actors. In this paper, I argue that the fundamental premises of Levinas’ theory of justice can be used to construct a prohibition against capital punishment. After analyzing Levinas’ concepts of justice, responsibility, and interruption, I turn toward his scattered remarks on legal institutions, arguing that they enable a sense of interruption specific to the legal domain. It is here that we find the conceptual resources most important to my Levinasian abolition. I argue that the interruption of legal justice by responsibility implies what I call the “principle of revisability.” The principle of revisability states a necessary condition of just legal institutions: To be just, legal institutions must ensure the possibility of revising any and all of their rules, principles, and judgments. From this, the argument against capital punishment easily follows. Execution is a legal act, perhaps the only legal act, that cannot be undone. An application of the principle of revisability to this fact leads to the conclusion that legal institutions cannot justly impose capital punishment. After defending these points at length, I conclude with some observations on the consequences of the principle of revisability for law more generally.
- Amnesty International. 2009. “Unconscionable and unconstitutional”: Troy Davis facing fourth execution date in two years. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/069/2009?refresh=42. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. 1996.
- Atterton, Peter. 2009. Levinas, justice, and just war. In Levinas in Jerusalem: Phenomenology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, ed. J. Hansel, 141–153. Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
- Bator, Paul M. 1963. Finality in criminal law and federal Habeas Corpus for state prisoners. Harvard Law Review 76: 441–528. CrossRef
- Bergo, Bettina. 1999. Levinas between ethics and politics: For the beauty that adorns the earth. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer. CrossRef
- Bernasconi, Robert. 1990. The ethics of suspicion. Research in Phenomenology 20: 3–18. CrossRef
- Bernasconi, Robert. 1999. The third party: Levinas on the intersection of the ethical and the political. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 30(1): 76–87.
- Burggraeve, Roger. 2002. The wisdom of love in the service of love: Emmanuel Levinas on justice, peace, and human rights, tr. Jeffrey Bloechl. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
- Caygill, Howard. 2002. Levinas and the political. London, New York: Routledge.
- Critchley, Simon. 1992. The ethics of deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Critchley, Simon. 2007. Infinitely demanding: Ethics of commitment, politics of resistance. London: Verso.
- Davis, Michael. 1984. Is the death penalty irrevocable? Social Theory and Practice 10(2): 143–156. CrossRef
- Hand, Sean, ed. 1989. The Levinas reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Perpich, Diane. 2008. The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Pettys, Todd. 2007. Killing Roger coleman: Habeas, finality, and the innocence gap. William & Mary Law Review 48: 2313–2363.
- Poirié, François, ed. 1996. Emmanuel Lévinas: Essai et entretiens. Arles: Actes Sud.
- Pojman, Louis, and Jeffrey Reiman. 1998. The death penalty: For and against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Sarat, Austin. 2002. The “New Abolitionism” and the possibilities of legislative action: The new Hampshire experience. Ohio State Law Journal 63: 343–369.
- Solum, Lawrence B. 2004. Procedural justice. Southern California Law Review 78: 181–322.
- Responsibility and revision: a Levinasian argument for the abolition of capital punishment
Continental Philosophy Review
Volume 44, Issue 1 , pp 41-64
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Emmanuel Levinas
- Capital punishment
- Philosophy of law
- Benjamin S. Yost (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Providence College, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, RI, 02918, USA