Punishment and Justice in Adam Smith*

Abstract. The modern interpretation of Smith as a retributive theorist of punishment is challenged in favour of a view of his work as containing a curious amalgam of retributive and utilitarian elements. This unsynthesised theoretical compound accounts for many of the contradictory positions assumed by him, examples of which are given in the article. At the level of “punishment” (i.e., punishment considered without a political dimension), the retributivehtilitarian dichotomy is observed in his discussions of merit and demerit (which are utilitarian in their logic) and propriety and impropriety (which are retributive). At the level of state punishment, the same dichotomy is seen in his juxtaposition of considerations of individual justice and the political ends of punishment. A final section locates Smith's “double cleft stick” theoretically in his position on the one hand in the Hobbesian materialist tradition and on the other in his historical stance half-way between the individualism of the contractarians and the full blown utilitarianism of Bentham.     

On liberty and crime: Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill

The author considers some of the works produced by Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, who from different perspectives discuss notions such as transgression, deviance and crime. It is argued that the analysis of power crime may immensely benefit from an excavation into economics, for its concern about the creation and acquisition of wealth, the legitimacy of certain conducts as opposed to others, and ultimately the circumstances in which competition and enterprise may cause human and social harm.     

"Magical thinking," suicide, and malpractice litigation

Prospective clinical assessment of suicidality differs significantly from that used retrospectively in malpractice litigation. In the latter context, the judge or jury may be susceptible to hindsight reasoning and a disproportionate emphasis on the specific method of suicide, exaggerating its foreseeability and "magically" linking the means of death to the treating clinician, especially in the case of suicide by an overdose of prescribed medication. Such magical thinking, moreover, is rooted in the clinical context of suicide: The errors of reasoning observed in the courtroom exhibit striking parallels with the mind-set of the suicidal patient. An understanding of these dynamics suggests appropriate precautions for the clinician and thus contributes to the prevention both of suicide and of malpractice litigation.     

The "New Russians," the State,and Civil Society

The problem of crime in a transition society in general, and in Russia in particular, is part of a much broader problem of "liberation from the state." The road to such liberation is not necessarily a peaceful one. The emergence of a new view on life, new ideas of what is permissible and what is not, what is morally justified and what is prohibited, may be manifested in the collective and concerted actions of society as a whole or in a significant segment of society, thereby producing a revolution. Also, the adoption of new moral practices and the rejection of older ones may take place at the individual level, and in this case we may speak of a person's "escape" from state and society.     

Edmund Burke and Adam Smith: Pioneers in the field of law & economics

Robert W. McGee is a professor in the W. Paul Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey. He has authored or edited more than 30 books and monographs and has published more than 200 articles for a variety of journals in accounting, taxation, law, economics and philosophy.     

"非刑罚化"与"刑罚化"--论刑罚的退守与进攻

在刑罚谦抑思想、犯罪学的新发展以及现实的需要下,我国的刑罚要顺应"非刑罚化"的趋势,在刑事政策的视野中广泛适用非刑罚的犯罪制裁方式,以及建立保安处分制度等,必须退守.同时,刑事政策视野中我国的"犯罪化"趋势以及刑罚和非刑罚措施本身的不合理性又决定着刑罚必须进攻,即"刑罚化".把单位犯罪和劳动教养制度的"刑罚化"改革作为契机以实现刑法的科学与完善.在"非刑罚化"和"刑罚化"两个大趋势的辨证作用下我国的刑法才能更加成熟与完善.     

论“依法从重从快”

经过近四十年的实践,我国已经形成了"依法从重从快"的规范体系。"依法从重从快"是党的"宽严相济"政策的法律化,有其深厚的制度和价值基础。"依法从重从快"对于秩序价值的实现、正义价值的维护具有特殊重要的作用。"依法从重从快"指涉事项复杂、多样;相当一部分"依法从重从快"规范属于"一次性"立法范畴,同时,联合立法的特点明显。有必要提高立法规格、创新规范形式为"依法从重从快"增信;必要时由全国人民代表大会制定《紧急状态法》或者修改《突发事件应对法》明确规定"依法从重从快"的相关情形;制定和完善关于紧急状态的党内法规,促进"依法从重从快"和"以规从重从快"的协调和配合。     

Shame,Guilt, and Punishment

The emotions of shame and guilt have recently appeared in debates concerning legal punishment, in particular in the context of so called shaming and guilting penalties. The bulk of the discussion, however, has focussed on the justification of such penalties. The focus of this article is broader than that. My aim is to offer an analysis of the concept of legal punishment that sheds light on the possible connections between punishing practices such as shaming and guilting penalties, on the one hand, and emotions such as guilt, shame, and perhaps humiliation, on the other. I␣contend that this analysis enhances our understanding of the various theories of punishment that populate this part of criminal law theory and thereby sharpens the critical tools needed to assess them. My general conclusion is that, in different ways, all of the theories we encounter in this area can benefit from paying renewed attention to the nature of the connection between the state’s act of punishing and its expected or perceived emotional effect on the individual. OB, JD, KM, FT, CEB, KKJ, ASP, JS, AD, NE and the SNF x2.     

Self-Defense,Punishment and Forfeiture

Abstract

According to the self-defense view, the moral justification of punishment is derived from the moral justification of an earlier threat of punishment for an offense. According to the forfeiture view, criminals can justly be punished because they have forfeited certain rights in virtue of their crimes. The paper defends three theses about these two views. (1) The self-defense view is false because the right to threaten retaliation is not independent of the right to carry out that threat. (2) A more plausible account of the right to threaten says instead that the right to retaliate is primary to the right to threaten, and that the former right in turn arises because aggressors forfeit the right not to suffer retaliation. (3) The “fair warning thesis,” according to which just punishment must be preceded by a threat, is less plausible than first appearances suggest and is therefore no serious obstacle to the view of threats described above.     

Punishment,Liberalism, and Public Reason

The article argues for a conception of the justification of punishment that is compatible with a modern, politically liberal regime. Section I deals with what some have thought are the obvious social interests society has in punishing criminals, and tries to develop those possible interests somewhat sympathetically. Section II suggests that many of those reasons are not good ones if punishment is regarded (as it should be) from the perspective of political philosophy. Social responses to bad things happening to people cannot be grounded in controversial metaphysical views about what is good for people or what people deserve, but many reasons proffered for punishment are in fact grounded in such views. This constraint, accordingly, limits what individuals can expect in terms of a societal response to crime. Section III develops the appropriate reasons for punishment in a modern, liberal regime. Here the article relies on a—largely undefended—conception of public reason as the most plausible theory of what reasons for punishment are available to liberals. Section IV offers some closing thoughts on why people might adopt a politically liberal view about punishment as their own, personal view about how they should relate to others.