Retributivism and Over-Punishment

Law and Philosophy - Lately it has become a commonplace to complain about the injustice of mass incarceration. I share the sentiment that this phenomenon has been an injustice. But it also has...     

The Failure of Trust-Based Retributivism

Law and Philosophy -     

Retributivism and Legal Moralism

This article examines whether a retributivist conception of punishment implies legal moralism and asks what liberalism implies about retributivism and moralism. It makes a case for accepting the weak retributivist thesis that culpable wrongdoing creates a pro tanto case for blame and punishment and the weak moralist claim that moral wrongdoing creates a pro tanto case for legal regulation. This weak moralist claim is compatible with the liberal claim that the legal enforcement of morality is rarely all‐thing‐considered desirable. Though weak moralism has some plausibility, it does not follow from weak retributivism if legitimate state functions are limited in certain ways.     

Retributivism and the inadvertent punishment of the innocent

Retributivism is generally thought to forbid the punishment of the innocent, even if such punishment would produce otherwise good results, such as deterrence. It has recently been argued that because capital punishment always entails the risk of executing an innocent person, instituting capital punishment is tantamount to intentionally taking innocent lives and therefore cannot be justified on retributive grounds. I argue that there are several versions of retributivism, only one of which might categorically forbid risking punishing innocent persons. I also argue that our moral practices reveal either that we do not hold this particular version of retributivism, or that we reject equating risking punishing the innocent with intentionally doing so. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A9102008 00005     

Book Review: Social Meaning,Retributivism, and Homicide

Law and Philosophy -     

Retributivism,Consequentialism, and the Intrinsic Goodness of Punishment

Retributivism is commonly taken as an alternative to a consequentialist justification of punishment. It has recently been suggested, however, that retributivism can be recast as a consequentialist theory. This suggestion is shown to be untenable. The temptation to advance it is traced to an intrinsic good claim prominent in retributive thinking. This claim is examined, and is argued to be of little help in coping with the difficulties besetting the retributive theory, as well as clashing with a desert claim equally central to that theory.     

The Instruments of Abolition, or Why Retributivism is the Only Real Justification of Punishment

Victor Tadros’ The Ends of Harm is the most recent systematic attempt to defend the good old utilitarian justification of punishment. The attempt fails for a variety of reasons, which are here explored. First, the attempt presupposes an implausible account of human’s psychology. Second, the attempt confuses an attack on retributivism with an attack on certain criminal justice systems. Finally, Tadros admits that his justification of punishment is best seen as a mere step along the road to full-blown abolitionism – and so he unwittingly admits the extraordinarily thin sense in which he could be said to be really attempting to justify punishment.     

宪法解释权和适用权是实现宪法监督的关系——英美法系司法审查权的启示

英美法系国家的宪法监督权,通常由普通法院和专门机关来行使,这些机关均享有宪法解释权和适用权,宪法监督主体享有宪法解释和适用权是行使宪法监督权的关键和保证。     

谈善意取得与物权行为无因性原则的功能互补

在研究物权行为的理论中,无论是赞成抑或反对物权行为理论,善意取得和物权行为无因性原则的关系都是相当重要的工具。如何看待关于二者的功能,相互之间的关系,存有大量的争议。善意取得制度与物权行为无因性原则功能互补能更好地维护交易安全,提高交易效率。我国物权法对物权行为理论采取回避态度只会引起理论和审判实践中的思路不清,对维护稳定的经济交易制度并无益处。承认物权行为,承认物权变动的独立性,才能适应将来经济社会的发展的复杂性和多样性。     

正确的与合理的

英美刑法对含糊的、但具解释力的“合理性”的依赖促成了平面式法律推理,而大陆刑法则基于对“正确的”这一概念的独特理解而形成了构建式的法律思维模式。虽然无论是“合理的”还是“正确的”都体现了一种使刑法规范超越实定法的努力,但“正确的”代表着一种一元性的法律秩序,意味每一法律争议只存在唯一正确答案,而“合理的”则驱使法律秩序走向多元。在某种程度上,这也正是哈特和德沃金关于自由裁量权问题的争论的症结所在。     

论商誉权的人格权法保护模式——以我国人格权法的制定为视角

人格权是商誉权的本质属性,也是商誉权作为权利存在的根本.商誉权的人格权法保护具有深厚的法理基础.反不正当竞争法保护模式、知识产权法保护模式在对商誉权保护中存在一定缺陷,人格权法保护模式能够克服这些模式的不足.法人名誉权、信用权、商号权、商事人格权的立法模式亦不能很好地保护商誉权,只有将商誉权规定为一种人格权,才能更好地实现商誉权的保护.若商誉权在人格权法中缺失,不仅有害于商誉权的保护,而且影响到未来民法典中人格权法的独立成编,也影响到民商合一立法模式的实现.     

司法鉴定的历史演变：从神权走向民权

人类对自然、社会认识的历史是从无知愚味到科学探索、科学认识的过程,对于解决纠纷的诉讼证据,也是伴随人类认识水平的提高而提高。根据我国三大诉讼法规定,鉴定结论是证据种类之一,司法鉴定就是随着如何发现证据,认识证据,努力实现其科学性、客观性而产生和发展的。为此,贯彻落实《决定》,建立一个中立、科学、公开、公正解决社会与司法诉争的科学体系,是开创一个运用科学解决纠纷新时代的呼唤。     

追续权:艺术家的福利

追续权是一项平衡艺术家与艺术品经营商之间经济收益分配的著作权法律制度.1920年,法国最早确立了追续权制度,后有五十多个国家引入该制度,我国《著作权法》第三次修改草案中增设了有关追续权的规定.追续权是艺术作品的作者从艺术品转售中获得收益的权利,是著作权中的报酬请求权,追续权的行使以获得销售信息为前提,并依赖于著作权集体管理组织,追续权如能得到著作权法的确认,还须制定具体的可操作的法律规范.     

论作为排他权与支配权的知识产权——从与物权比较的视角

知识产权的客体是智力成果,物权的客体是有体物。物权和知识产权皆具有积极效力和排他效力两个方面,在本文中,前者被称为支配权,后者被称为排他权。物权和知识产权的积极效力和排他效力存在着显著区别,主要表现在:物权首先是对某一有体物全面的支配权,然后才是排他权;而知识产权则首先应被视为排他权,然后才是对某一智力成果的支配权;知识产权作为支配权具有有限性,但该有限支配却会产生重大的经济后果。     

水人权:人权法上的水权

离开了水,人类无法生存.因此,水人权是一项基本人权.这已经为国际法充分承认.国家有义务尽可能利用其现有资源实施水人权.尽管水人权属于经济、社会及文化权利的范畴,是国家应当采取措施逐步充分实现的人权,但国家也负有一定的立即履行的义务.然而,在国家层面上,包括我国在内的多数国家存在一个需要解决的共同问题,即缺乏系统、有效的规定和保护.     

宅基地使用权身份化困境之破解——以物权与成员权的分离为视角

宅基地使用权被绑定了集体成员的身份,导致其无法流转。成员权作为成员对集体的权利,主要表现为成员对集体宅基地的分配请求权和土地使用费的豁免权。成员权与使用权人对宅基地的支配性物权不同。混淆成员权与物权的原因在于未区分宅基地使用权的原始取得与其后流转,简单地将实物保障作为村民保障的唯一方式等。将宅基地使用权中的成员权和物权分离是实现宅基地使用权去身份化的有效途径。