Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 179–192 | Cite as

The communicative aspects of civil disobedience and lawful punishment

Original Paper

Abstract

A parallel may be drawn between the communicative aspect of civil disobedience and the communicative aspect of lawful punishment by the state. In punishing an offender, the state seeks to communicate both its condemnation of the crime committed and its desire for repentance and reformation on the part of the offender. Similarly, in civilly disobeying the law, a disobedient seeks to convey both her condemnation of a certain law or policy and her desire for recognition that a lasting change in policy is required. When disobedients and authorities target each other, their confrontation allows for a direct comparison of the respective justifiability of their conduct. Their confrontation is explored in this paper with an eye to analysing how civil disobedients and authorities should engage with each other.

Keywords

Civil disobedience Communication Desert Deterrence Dialogue Justification Punishment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the feedback I received from participants of the Socio-Legal Studies Association annual conference, University of Stirling, Scotland, 28–30 March 2006; the London Legal and Political Philosophy Seminar 3–4 April 2006; and the 10th annual Law and Philosophy Colloquium, University College London, 3–4 July 2006. I also wish to thank Claire Grant, Kinch Hoekstra, Christoph Ortner, Mark Reiff, John Tasioulas, and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on previous drafts.

References

  1. Ashworth, A., & von Hirsch, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brownlee, K. (2004). Features of a paradigm case of civil disobedience. Res Publica, 10(4), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duff, A. (1998). Desert and penance. In A. Ashworth & A. von Hirsch (Eds.), Principled sentencing: Theory and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Duff, A. (2003). Punishment. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Oxford handbook of practical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Duff, A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  7. Feinberg, J. (1994). The expressive function of punishment. In A. Duff & D. Garland (Eds.), A reader on punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gardner, J. (2002). In defence of defences. Flores Juris et Legum: Festskrift till Nils Jareborg. Uppsala: Iustus Forlag. Retrieved 3 October 2003 from http://users.ox.ac.uk/∼lawf0081/biblio.htm.Google Scholar
  9. Gardner, J., & Macklem, T. (2002). Reasons. In J. Coleman & S. Shapiro (Eds.), Oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Greenawalt, K. (1987). Conflicts of law and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Mill, J. S. (1999). On liberty. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  12. Potter, W. (2001). The new backlash: From the streets to the courthouse, the new activists find themselves under attack. Texas Observer, 14 September. Retrieved 10 October 2005 from http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=420.Google Scholar
  13. Raz, J. (1994). Ethics in the public domain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Raz, J. (1979). The authority of law essays on law and morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Russell, B. (1998). Autobiography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Scheffler, S. (2003). Distributive justice and economic desert. In S. Olsaretti (Ed.), Desert and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Soper, P. (2002). The ethics of deference: Learning from law’s morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Tasioulas, J. (2003). Mercy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 103(2), 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tasioulas, J. (2006). Punishment and repentance. Philosophy, 81, 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. von Hirsch, A. (1998). Proportionate sentences: A desert perspective. In A. Ashworth & A. von Hirsch (Eds.), Principled sentencing: Theory and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations