Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 49–61 | Cite as

Hoskins’s New Benefit-Fairness Theory of Punishment

  • Peter ChauEmail author
Original Paper


The benefit-fairness theory of punishment (sometimes referred to simply as the “fairness” theory of punishment), which is one of the most prominent retributive justifications of punishment, appeals to some benefits received by an offender in explaining why it is fair to impose punitive burdens on him. However, many see the two traditional versions of the theory, found in the works by writers such as Herbert Morris, Jeffrie Murphy, and George Sher, as being susceptible to fatal objections. In a recent paper, “Fairness, Political Obligation, and Punishment,” Zachary Hoskins offers a new version of the benefit-fairness theory of punishment. I will highlight his original contribution by showing how his version of the benefit-fairness theory of punishment is different from the traditional versions in such a way that the main objections applying to the traditional versions do not apply to his account. Nonetheless, despite its many virtues, I will argue that Hoskins’s theory fails because it would entail disproportionate punishment.


Retributivism Fair play Justification of punishment Zachary Hoskins 



I am grateful to Cora Chan, Frank Choi, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This work was supported by GRF Grant 17612315 from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council and I am grateful for the financial support.


  1. Alexander, L. “Consent, Punishment, and Proportionality,” Philosophy &Public Affairs 15(2) (1986): 178–182.Google Scholar
  2. Boonin, D. The Problem of Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgh, R. “Do the Guilty Deserve Punishment?,” The Journal of Philosophy 79 (4)(1982): 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dagger, R. “Punishment as Fair Play,” Res Publica 14(4) (2008): 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duff, R.A. “The Incompleteness of ‘Punishment as Fair Play’: A Response to Dagger,” Res Publica 14(4) (2008): 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duus-Otterström, G. “Fairness-Based Retributivism Reconsidered,” Criminal Law and Philosophy 11(3) (2017): 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, A. The Philosophy of Punishment (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
  8. Gans, C. “Justice-Conditioned and Democracy-Based Obedience,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 8(1) (1988): 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardner, J. Offences and Defences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart, H.L.A. “Are There Any Natural Rights?,” The Philosophical Review 64(2) (1955): 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).Google Scholar
  12. Hoskins, Z. “Fair Play, Political Obligation, and Punishment,” Criminal Law and Philosophy 5(1) (2011): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klosko, G. “Presumptive Benefit, Fairness, and Political Obligation,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 16(3) (1987): 241–259.Google Scholar
  14. Meketa, I. “Honor Among (the Beneficiaries of) Thieves,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (2015): 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morris, H. “Persons and Punishment,” The Monist 52(3) (1968): 475–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murphy, J. “Marxism and Retribution,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 2(3) (1973): 217–243.Google Scholar
  17. Nino, C.S. “A Consensual Theory of Punishment,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12(4) (1983): 289–306.Google Scholar
  18. Sher, G. Desert (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  19. Simmons, A.J. Moral Principles and Political Obligations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  20. Waldron, J. “Lex Talionis,” Arizona Law Review 34(1) (1992): 25–51.Google Scholar
  21. Westen, P. “Retributive Desert as Fair Play,” in K. Ferzan and S. Morse (eds.), Legal, Moral, and Metaphysical Truths: The Philosophy of Michael S. Moore (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong

Personalised recommendations