声音

正典故虽小,反映的却是领导干部的学风和作风。——《人民日报》如此刊文,要求领导用对典故。据了解,近些年出现的官员用错典故引发的笑话不少。有的将罄竹难书用作褒义词,有的将渐渐入港用在形容事情已到位上。更有甚者,将网友编的假典故当作文史典故引用,引     

声音

“如果有一天刘翔不再优秀，希望大家可以原谅他。” ——语出刘翔母亲。伦敦奥运会男子110米栏预赛中，刘翔在第一个栏架处摔倒受伤。黯然告别了奥运会赛场。     

声音

"没有礼貌的中国人!人家一家三口普普通通吃午饭,你们不停拍拍拍!问一声也没有,不懂尊重别人!"——歌手陈奕迅一家三口在温哥华某拉面馆吃饭期间,其妻子怀疑被当地华人偷拍,一怒之下反拍对方清晰照上传至微博,并写下了以上的话。"真是为了避暑,不惜挥金如土啊!"——近段时间,南京高温,催热了跑腿业务,什么稀奇古怪的跑腿要求都有,甚至有人在家烧     

声音

美国大选所研究的堕胎、就业、同性恋、医疗保险、加税减税、要不要禁止私人拥有枪支、军费开支要不要增加等问题,在我看来都是些枝节问题、不是问题的问题、无病呻吟的问题、吃饱了撑的的问题。——司马南谈美国大选中的议题。     

声音

“有必要制定法律保护我国的珍贵遗产。”     

声音

“秦桧坐像是制作公司做的，我们当时没有想太多。秦桧虽是江宁人，但我们没有为他平反的意思。”     

声音

＂真的,平时只能游20米。跳下去救人时,没想到那么多。现在回想起来也不害怕。我身体好,又是学跳舞的,我相信自己能救起那个小男孩儿。＂ ——贵州大学艺校舞蹈系女孩儿向欣园救起落水男童时说。     

声音

"老百姓买不起房是因为他们没本事。大学毕业生不是买不起房,而是老家有房不回去住。"——"80后"河南省政协委员卢一博在河南"两会"上雷语不断。身为企业老板的卢一博曾资助4000余名贫困大学生,向社会捐助财物约2800万元。"(小姐)卖淫行为应该不予追究,因为我们没法儿区别小姐和二奶,因为二奶和小姐是批发和零售的关系,二奶是     

A Retributive Argument Against Punishment

This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to be an argument only against retributive justifications of punishment, and so leave open the possibility of a sound non-retributive justification of punishment. Punishment cannot be justified, the paper argues, because it cannot be demonstrated that any punishment, no matter how minimal, is not a disproportionate retributive response to criminal wrongdoing. If we are to hold onto proportionality—that is, proportionality as setting a limit to morally permissible punishment—then punishment is morally impermissible. The argument is a retributive argument against punishment insofar as a just retributive response to wrongdoing must be proportionate to the wrongdoing. The argument, that is, is concerned with proportionality as a retributive requirement. The argument against punishment is set out on the basis of a familiar version of the ‘anchoring problem’, according to which it is the problem of determining the most severe punishment to anchor or ground the punishment scale. To meet the possible criticism that we have chosen a version of the anchoring problem particularly favourable to our argument, various alternative statements of the anchoring problem are considered. Considering such statements also provides a more rounded view of the anchoring problem. One such alternative holds that the punishment scale must be anchored not just in the most severe punishment, but in the least severe punishment as well. Other alternatives hold that it is necessary and sufficient to anchor the punishment scale in any two punishments, neither of which needs to be the most or least severe punishment. A further suggestion is that one anchoring point anywhere along the punishment scale is sufficient, because it is possible to ‘project’ from such a point, so as to determine the correlative punishments for all other crimes, and so derive a complete punishment scale. Finally, the suggestion is considered that one can approach the issue of a punishment scale ‘holistically’, denying any distinction between anchoring and derived (or ‘projected’) punishments.