Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Penal Philosophy and Sentencing Theory

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_605
How to cite

Overview

Many penal philosophers think that offering a justification of the state’s right to punish is particularly urgent (and difficult) precisely because punishment involves doing things to people that would, outside the practice of punishment, be gross rights violations. That is, punishment typically involves imposing some deprivation – for example, the removal of property or freedoms – on a person for committing an offense and this stands in need of justification. Yet, despite this motivation, many theories of the justification of punishment say surprisingly little about the detail of sentencing and penalties. This entry considers the various rationales for sentencing with a view to showing both how different justifications of punishment have different implications for sentencing theory and practice and how reflecting on sentencing matters can shed light on the justification of punishment. The entry considers first consequentialist theories – that is, theories that justify...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Ashworth A (2010) Sentencing and criminal justice, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentham J (1843) Principles of penal law. In: Bowring J (ed) The works of Jeremy Bentham, 1st edn. William Tait, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham J (1970) In: Fred R, Philip S (eds) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottoms A, von Hirsch A (2011) The crime preventive impact of penal sanctions. In: Cane P, Kritzer H (eds) The Oxford handbook of empirical legal research. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Doob AN, Webster CM (2003) Sentence severity and crime: accepting the null hypothesis. Crime Justice 30:143–195 (ArticleType: research-article/Full publication date: 2003/Copyright © 2003 The University of Chicago Press)Google Scholar
  6. Duff RA (1986) Trials and punishments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Duff RF (2007) Answering for crime: responsibility and liability in the criminal law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Feinberg J (1970) The expressive function of punishment. In: Doing and deserving: essays in the theory of responsibility. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 95–118Google Scholar
  9. Frankel ME (1972) Criminal sentences: law without order. Hill and Wang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Frase R (2004) Limiting retributivism. In: Tonry M (ed) The future of imprisonment. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 83–120Google Scholar
  11. Goodin R (1995) Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart HLA (1968) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Kleinig J (1973) Punishment and desert. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Lacey N (2008) The prisoners’ dilemma: political economy and punishment in contemporary democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis CS (1949) The humanitarian theory of punishment. 20 Century Aust Q Rev 3(3):5–12Google Scholar
  16. Matravers M (1999) Punishment and political theory. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Matravers M (2000) Justice and punishment: the rationale of coercion. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Matravers M (2011) Is twenty-first century punishment post-desert? In: Tonry M (ed) Retributivism has a past: has it a future? Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. McCloskey H (1968) A non-utilitarian apporach to punishment. In: Bayles M (ed) Contemporary utilitarianism. Doubleday, New York, pp 239–259Google Scholar
  20. Michael J, Adler M (1933) Crime, law and social science. Harcourt, Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Monahan J (2004) The future of violence risk management. In: Tonry M (ed) The future of imprisonment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore M (1987) The moral worth of retribution. In: Schoemann F (ed) Responsibility, character and the emotions. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 179–219Google Scholar
  23. Moore M (1997) Placing blame: a general theory of the criminal law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris N (1974) The future of imprisonment. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Morse SJ (1999) Neither desert nor disease. Legal Theory 5:265–309Google Scholar
  26. Posner RA (1985) An economic theory of criminal law. Columbia Law Rev 85:1193–1195Google Scholar
  27. Rawls J (1955/1999) Two concepts of rules. In: Rawls J, Freeman SR (eds) Collected papers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 20–46Google Scholar
  28. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson P, Darley J (2003) The role of deterrence in the formulation of criminal law rules: at its worst when doing its best. Georgetown Law J 91:949Google Scholar
  30. Robinson P, Darley J (2004) Does criminal law deter? A behavioural science investigation. Oxf J Legal Stud 24:173–205Google Scholar
  31. Tonry M (1992) Proportionality, parsimony, and interchangeability of punishments. In: Duff A et al (eds) Penal theory and penal practice. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Tonry M (2011a) Retributivism has a past: has it a future? Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Tonry M (ed) (2011b) Why punish? How much?: a reader on punishment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. von Hirsch A (1993) Censure and sanctions. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. von Hirsch A (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity : an analysis of recent research. Hart, Oxford/PortlandGoogle Scholar
  36. von Hirsch A, Ashworth A (2005) Proportionate sentencing : exploring the principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. von Hirsch A, Committee for the Study of Incarceration (1976) Doing justice: the choice of punishments: report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration, 1st edn. Hill and Wang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker N (1969) Sentencing in a rational society. Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Wexler DB (2008) Rehabilitating lawyers: principles of therapeutic jurisprudence for criminal law practice. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  40. Winick B (1997) The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychol Public Policy Law 3(1):184–206Google Scholar
  41. Wootton B (1978) Crime and penal policy: reflections on fifty years’ experience. George Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Morrell Centre for TolerationUniversity of YorkYorkUK