Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

Desert,Bell Motion,and Fairness

In this critical review, I address two themes from Shelly Kagan’s path-breaking The Geometry of Desert. First I explain the so-called “bell motion” of desert mountains—a notion reflecting that, ceteris paribus, as people get more virtuous it becomes more important not to give them too little of whatever they deserve than not to give them too much. Having argued that Kagan’s defense of it is unsatisfactory, I offer two objections to the existence of the bell motion. Second, I take up an unrelated issue—the relation between comparative and non-comparative desert. I argue that, given a certain disaggregationist view of comparative desert, it is possible that comparative desert is not satisfied, even if non-comparative desert is perfectly so. Unlike my objections to the bell motion, this possibility adds further complexity to an already complex Kaganian account of desert.     

Desert,retribution, and corporate criminality

The role of commensurate deserts in the punishment of corporations and their agents has received little attention to date. Those who have written on desert and corporate crime dismiss it on the grounds that retributive rationales, which incorporate notions of desert, are not applicable to corporate offenses and because desert, with its focus on the moral opprobrium attached to criminal conduct, is not fitting for offenses which are regulatory and thus “morally neutral.” This essay argues that although retribution is a viable justification for corporate punishments, it need not be the only or even the primary justification for punishment for desert to be applicable in the distribution of corporate sanctions. It also questions the position of moral neutrality, citing empirical evidence of the public's perceptions of the seriousness of corporate criminal activity.     

Comparative Desert Vs. Fairness

In the recent book The Geometry of Desert, Shelly Kagan explores, with a rare degree of precision, how best to cash out two fundamental and widely shared intuitions. The first intuition says that virtuous people deserve to be doing well, and that less virtuous (or vicious) people deserve to be doing less well – and thus, that it’s good (other things equal) if virtuous people are doing well and if less virtuous (or vicious) people are doing less well (or even badly). The second intuition says that the distribution of the satisfaction of people’s desert claims across persons matters: that it’s good (other things equal) if people’s desert claims are satisfied in accordance with the demands of interpersonal fairness. The former intuition states the basis of what Kagan calls ‘absolute desert’. The latter articulates the basis of what he calls ‘comparative desert’. I advance an internal critique of Kagan’s conception of comparative desert; I argue that it contravenes the demands of interpersonal fairness in the domain of desert, and so fails on its own terms.     

Kant on Wrongdoing,Desert, and Punishment

Law and Philosophy -     

The Law and the Desert: Alternative Methods of Delivering Justice

This article considers the way in which the Federal Court of Australia has adapted to the native title jurisdiction. Here we see how common law approaches to law and procedure challenge, and are challenged by, the culture of indigenous peoples and customary law. It conveys the risk of cultural violence in a balancing of legal and cultural norms and shows how access to justice debates reach beyond debates about funding and advice into more fundamental issues about legal process and the nature of substantive law. The Court's approach to facilitating access to justice goes deeper than essential procedural changes. Its approach suggests a cultural change within the Court.     

反恐利剑:以色列沙漠“野小子”

以色列特种部队组建于1953年,以色列所处地位特殊,面临的冲突颇具极端性,因此决定了特种部队所从事的都是和国内或者周边阿拉伯国家有关的绝密危险任务。上世纪60年代以后,以色列特种部队作战颇为频繁,由应急作战转换为执行反恐怖任务。作为一个特殊的兵种,特种作战部队是以色列常规部队的加强和补充,在应付突发事件、情报侦察、实施心理战、特工破坏和反恐怖方面发挥了重大的作用,多次营救人质的行动成功率极高,几乎百战百胜。     

Why We Punish in the Name of Justice: Just Desert versus Value Restoration and the Role of Social Identity

Two different notions of justice might motivate people to demand punishment of an offender. The offense could be seen as lowering the victim’s and community’s status/power position relative to the offender, requiring a degradation of the offender to restore a moral balance (just desert). Or, the offense could be seen as questioning community values, requiring a reaffirmation of those values through social consensus (value restoration). Two studies referring to tax evasion and social welfare fraud yielded supportive evidence. Just desert was related to traditional punishment, especially when participants did not identify with a relevant inclusive community (Australians). Value restoration was related to alternative (restorative) punishment, especially when community values were regarded as diverse and requiring consensualization. It tended to be related to traditional punishment when community values were regarded as clear and consensual.

Implementing and evaluating crime prevention and control programs and policies

The history of crime prevention and control efforts in the United States has demonstrated little progressive improvement in our ability to deter crime. The major obstacles to implementing effective interventions and policies have been a weak scientific knowledge base about how to prevent crime, the research community's inability to effectively disseminate what is known about the causes of crime and to translate this knowledge into operational programs and policies, and a resistance on the part of practitioners and policy makers to evaluate programs and policies and to use this information in the development of new programs and policies. In the last decade, there have been major advances in our understanding about the causes of crime and we have now demonstrated the effectiveness of selected prevention programs. But there is little evidence that this scientific knowledge is informing current practice or policy. Problems in the dissemination of this information and the resistance to utilizing it remain. These problems are discussed and suggestions are made for addressing them. Our knowledge base remains modest, but it is now sufficient to inform policy and practice. The research community must work to do a better job of disseminating this information and overcoming the resistance to utilizing it before we will be successful in implementing effective crime prevention programs and policies. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

International aid,trade and investment and access and allocation

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics - The access to goods and their allocation (who gets what, when, where and how) is one of the analytical problems of the 2009...     

Accommodation and Satisfaction: Women and Men Lawyers and the Balance of Work and Family

This study of graduates of the University of Michigan Law School from the late 1970s reports on the differing ways that women and men have responded to the conflicting claims of work and family. It finds that women with children who have entered the profession have indeed continued to bear the principal responsibilities for the care of children, but it also finds that these women, with all their burdens, are more satisfied with their careers and with the balance of their family and professional lives than other women and than men.     

Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law

Abstract. There is tension between the adversarialism of the U.S. legal culture and the investigative procedures of the sciences, and between the law's concern for finality and the open‐ended fallibilism of science. A long history of attempts to domesticate scientific testimony by legal rules of admissibility has left federal judges with broad screening responsibilities; recent adaptations of adversarialism in the form of court‐appointed experts have been criticized as “inquisitorial,” even “undemocratic.” In exploring their benefits and disadvantages, it would make sense to look to the experience of other legal systems.