Res Publica

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Regaining Traction on the Problem of Punishment: A Critique of David Boonin’s Use of the Entailment Test

Comment
First Online:

Abstract

Boonin (The problem of punishment, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008) examines more than a dozen theories of punishment and offers perhaps the most systematic argument that the legal practice of punishment is probably unjustified. This provocative claim comes at a time when US prisons face unsustainable population growth and high recidivism rates. In place of punishment, Boonin offers an account of ‘compulsory victim restitution’. Responses to Boonin (The problem of punishment, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008) have focused on the merits of his theory of restitution or have defended a single particular theory of punishment from his objections. The present paper offers a more comprehensive response, which finds a critical fault in the crux of Boonin’s argument: the ‘entailment test’. If the practice of punishment is unjustified, it is not for the reasons Boonin gives.

Keywords

Legal punishment Retributivism Boonin Restitution Legal philosophy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bennett, Christopher. 2010. Punishment and rehabilitation. In Punishment and ethics, ed. Jesper Ryberg, and J. Angelo Corlett, 52–71. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boonin, David. 2008. The problem of punishment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brand-Ballard, Jeffrey. 2009. Innocents lost: Proportional sentencing and the paradox of collateral damage. Legal Theory 15: 67–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cholbi, Michael. 2010. Compulsory victim restitution is punishment: A reply to Boonin. Pub Reason 2: 85–93.Google Scholar
  5. Dagger, Richard. 2008. Punishment as fair play. Res Publica 14: 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flanders, Chad. 2014. Can retributivism be saved? Brigh Young Univ Law Rev 1: 309–362.Google Scholar
  7. Hoskins, Zachary. 2010. Deterrent punishment and respect for persons. Ohio State J Crim Law 8: 369–384.Google Scholar
  8. Hoskins, Zachary. 2011. Fair play, political obligation, and punishment. Crim Law Philos 5: 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Imbrisevic, Miroslav. 2010. The consent solution to punishment and the explicit denial objection. Theoria 25: 211–224.Google Scholar
  10. Kershnar, Stephen. 2010. The forfeiture theory of punishment: Surviving Boonin’s objections. Publ Aff Q 24: 319–334.Google Scholar
  11. Kershnar, Stephen. 2012. Does necessity justify punishment? Assessing the main threat to David Boonin’s restitution theory. Publ Aff Q 26: 71–79.Google Scholar
  12. Nadelhoffer, Thomas. 2013. The future of punishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ristroph, Alice. 2014. Just violence. Ariz Law Rev 56: 1017–1063.Google Scholar
  14. Staihar, Jim. 2015. Proportionality and punishment. Iowa Law Rev 100: 1209–1232.Google Scholar
  15. Stichter, Matt K. 2010. Rescuing fair-play as a justification for punishment. Res Publ 16: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wellman, Christopher H. 2012. The rights forfeiture theory of punishment. Ethics 122: 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wringe, William. 2016. An expressive theory of punishment. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations