Advertisement

Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 103–112 | Cite as

Zimmerman’s The Immorality of Punishment: A Critical Essay

  • Neil LevyEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In “The Immorality of Punishment”, Michael Zimmerman attempts to show that punishment is morally unjustified and therefore wrong. In this response, I focus on two main questions. First, I examine whether Zimmerman’s empirical claims—concerning our inability to identify wrongdoers who satisfy conditions on blameworthiness and who might be reformed through punishment, and the comparative efficacy of punitive and non-punitive responses to crime—stand up to scrutiny. Second, I argue that his crucial argument from luck depends on claims about counterfactuals that ought to be rejected. I conclude that though his arguments are powerful, they fall short of his ambitious aim of demonstrating that punishment is always seriously wrong.

Keywords

Punishment Blame Crime Ignorance Luck 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Massimo Renzo for helpful comments on a draft of this paper. This work is supported by a generous grant from the Australian Research Council.

References

  1. Arpaly, N. (2002). Unprincipled Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian Accounts of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Coffman, E.J. (2007). Thinking about Luck. Synthese 158: 385-398.Google Scholar
  4. Fischer, J.M. & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and Control: An Essay on Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, J.M. (2006). The Cards That Are Dealt You. Journal of Ethics, 10(1-2), 107-129.Google Scholar
  6. Levy, N. (2011). Hard Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Levy, N. (Forthcoming). Punishing the Addict: Reflections on Gene Heyman. In Thomas Nadelhoffer (ed). The Future of Punishment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Mele, A. (1995). Autonomous Agents. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mele, A. (2006). Free Will and Luck. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Nadelhoffer, T., Bibas, S., Grafton, S., Kiehl, K.A., Mansfield, A., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Gazzaniga, W. (2012). Neuroprediction, Violence, and the Law: Setting the Stage. Neuroethics 5(1), 67-99.Google Scholar
  11. Nagel, T. (1979). Moral Luck. In Mortal Questions (pp. 24-38), New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pritchard, D. (2005). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sher, G. (2009). Who Knew? Responsibility Without Awareness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, A. M. (2005). Responsibility for Attitudes: Activity and Passivity in Mental Life. Ethics, 115(2), 236–271.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, H. (1983). Culpable Ignorance. The Philosophical Review, XCII(4), 543-571.Google Scholar
  16. Waller, B.N. (2011). Against Moral Responsibility. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Watson, G. (2004). Agency and Answerability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Zimmerman, M. (2002). Taking Luck Seriously. Journal of Philosophy, 99(11), 553–576.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental HealthParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations