liberty in the negative sense? As we have seen in the previous section, the notion of positive freedom can be used to justify coercing individuals in some ways: only by being protected against themselves can such people achieve true freedom. Philosophers have attempted to justify state punishment of indi- viduals in four main ways: as retribution, as deterrent, as protection for society, and as reform of the person punished. The first is usually defended from a deontological position; the other three typically on consequentialist grounds.
PUNISHMENT AS RETRIBUTION
In its simplest form, retributivism is the view that those who intentionally break the law deserve the punishment they get, regardless whether there are any beneficial consequences for the individuals concemed or for society. Those who intentionally break the law deserve to suffer. Clearly there will be many people who are incapable of full responsibility for their breaking, and these deserve milder punishment, or in extreme cases, such as the severely mentally ill, treatment. However, in general, according to a retri butivist theory, punishment is justified as the appropriate response to wrongdoing. Moreover, the severity of the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime. In its simplest form of "an eye for eye' sometimes known as lex talionis retributivism demands an exactly proportional response to the crime committed. For some crimes such as blackmail it is difficult to see what this response could amount to: presumably the judge wouldn't be expected to sentence the blackmailer to six months' blackmail. Similarly it is hard to under- stand how a poverty-stricken thief who steals a gold watch could be punished in exact proportion to the crime. This is only a problem for the principle of an eye for an eye; with more sophisticated forms of retributivism the punishment need not mirror the crime.
CRITICISMS OF RETRIBUTIVISM
IT APPEALS TO BASER FEELINGS
Retributivism gets much of its force from feelings of revenge. Getting one's own back is a very basic human response to being
เสรีภาพในแง่ลบ เราได้เห็นในส่วนก่อนหน้า ความเชื่อในเรื่องของเสรีภาพในเชิงบวกสามารถใช้เหตุผลใดบุคคลในบางวิธี: โดยเฉพาะการป้องกันตัวเอง คนดังกล่าวสามารถบรรลุอิสรภาพที่แท้จริงได้ นักปรัชญาได้พยายามที่จะปรับโทษรัฐของหม่า viduals ใน 4 วิธีการ: เป็นวิบากกรรม ขัด เป็นการป้องกันสังคม และ เป็นปฏิรูปของบุคคลลงโทษ มักจะมีป้องกันครั้งแรกจากตำแหน่ง deontological อีกสามหนึ่งในบริเวณ consequentialist ทั่วไป การลงโทษ เป็นวิบากกรรม In its simplest form, retributivism is the view that those who intentionally break the law deserve the punishment they get, regardless whether there are any beneficial consequences for the individuals concemed or for society. Those who intentionally break the law deserve to suffer. Clearly there will be many people who are incapable of full responsibility for their breaking, and these deserve milder punishment, or in extreme cases, such as the severely mentally ill, treatment. However, in general, according to a retri butivist theory, punishment is justified as the appropriate response to wrongdoing. Moreover, the severity of the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime. In its simplest form of "an eye for eye' sometimes known as lex talionis retributivism demands an exactly proportional response to the crime committed. For some crimes such as blackmail it is difficult to see what this response could amount to: presumably the judge wouldn't be expected to sentence the blackmailer to six months' blackmail. Similarly it is hard to under- stand how a poverty-stricken thief who steals a gold watch could be punished in exact proportion to the crime. This is only a problem for the principle of an eye for an eye; with more sophisticated forms of retributivism the punishment need not mirror the crime. CRITICISMS OF RETRIBUTIVISM IT APPEALS TO BASER FEELINGS Retributivism gets much of its force from feelings of revenge. Getting one's own back is a very basic human response to being
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..