While it is possible to envision a [criminal justice] system wholly governed by deontological premises or one that relies solely on utilitarian policies, neither of these positions dominates the existing system to the exclusion of the other. Rather the system makes a series of significant, if uneasy, compromises between them. As you would expect, moreover, the purposes of punishment are historically contingent in the sense that different justifications are emphasized at different times. While retributive impulses may wane and instrumental goals wax, or vice-versa, the system nonetheless remains committed to a mixture of justificatory principles.
Of course, the criminal process itself does not negotiate these compromises by means of an abstract philosophical dispute. To the contrary, the process does its work by punishing real people in specific cases. Some people go to jail, others are forced to pay fines, while still others are put to death. For that reason, it is useful to have factrual contexts in mind when exploring why our culture commits its resources to punishing criminals.
You wanted the intellectual battles of philosophy, but with more real world consequences? It doesn't get more real than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment