An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment

The lex talionis of the Old Testament has been widely perceived—understandably,but mistakenly—as a barbaric law of retribution in kind.It is better understood as a seminal expression of restraintand proportionality as moral principles of punishment. Thishas been recognized from the earliest times. Over the interveningcenturies, the lex talionis has lost neither its moral significancenor its penal relevance. This is reflected in H.L.A. Hart'ssynthesis of modern retributivist and utilitarian theories ofpunishment and, again, in contemporary Canadian law throughthe recognition of proportionality as the fundamental principleof sentencing under the Criminal Code. The tension between thisfundamental principle and Canada's increasing resort to mandatoryminimum sentences of imprisonment is examined briefly in thislight.     

The Chimera of Proportionality: Institutionalising Limits on Punishment in Contemporary Social and Political Systems

The concept of proportionality has been central to the retributive revival in penal theory, and underlies desert theory's normative and practical commitment to limiting punishment. Theories of punishment combining desert‐based and consequentialist considerations also appeal to proportionality as a limiting condition. In this paper we argue that these claims are founded on an exaggerated idea of what proportionality can offer, and in particular fail properly to consider the institutional conditions needed to foster robust limits on the state's power to punish. The idea that appeals to proportionality as an abstract ideal can help to limit punishment is, we argue, a chimera: what has been thought of as proportionality is not a naturally existing relationship, but a product of political and social construction, cultural meaning‐making, and institution‐building. Drawing on evolutionary psychology and comparative political economy, we argue that philosophers and social scientists need to work together to understand how the appeal of the idea of proportionality can best be realised through substantive institutional frameworks under particular conditions.     

Proportionality and Self-Defense

Proportionality is widely accepted as a necessary condition of justified self-defense. What gives rise to this particular condition and what role it plays in the justification of self-defense seldom receive focused critical attention. In this paper I address the standard of proportionality applicable to personal self-defense and the role that proportionality plays in justifying the use of harmful force in self-defense. I argue against an equivalent harm view of proportionality in self-defense, and in favor of a standard of proportionality in self-defense that requires comparable seriousness and takes into account the wrong, as opposed simply to the harm that the victim is fending off. I distinguish the standard of proportionality in self-defense from proportionality in circumstances of necessity, and I discuss whether proportionality is an internal or an external constraint on the right of self-defense.     

Proportionality and Its Discontents

Law and Philosophy - In this paper, I defend a deflationary account of proportionality, which suggests that proportionality does not explain anything valuable about a system of punishment....     

Knowledge Problems and Proportionality

The proportionality standard demands a meaningful link between the severity of crimes and the punishments received for them. This article investigates the compatibility between this philosophical demand and the practical means most commonly associated with criminal justice provision: governmental decision making. In so far as criminal justice systems require the coordination of real human and physical resources, certain forms of knowledge and incentives are required to calculate, produce, and distribute outputs proportionately. Whereas markets rely upon pricing mechanisms to generate and coordinate information and incentives across diverse stages of complex production processes, governmental decision making often lacks a calculation mechanism comparable to market prices through which knowledge about societal needs and demands can be conveyed and may thus inevitably result in some forms of punitive disparity.     

Punishment and Welfare:

This paper will attempt to situate the current discourse on 'crack pregnancies' within the context of a broader regulatory discourse.' It will argue that defining and locating state intervention solely within the confines of formal legal discourse not only privileges the criminal law, but (1) occludes recognition of the ways in which regulation and control are effected by administrative law and welfare policy and (2) fails to specify the role of the welfare state in the construction and reproduction of dominant cultural norms of womanhood and mothering. The paper draws on feminist literature and fieldwork-in-progress to suggest that many of these women are already subject to substantial mechanisms of social control and cultural reproduction. In concluding, it is suggested that the construction of this debate to date has served to deflect attention away from the fissures of gender, race and class that render these women's lives as publicly problematic.     

比例原则适用的争议与反思

当前对比例原则的公私法适用范围、比例原则与成本收益分析的关系、比例原则的逻辑结构等问题存在较大的分歧,甚至存在误解.通过追根溯源考察比例原则的思想起源与全球适用可以发现,比例原则在越来越多的制定法中得到了直接明文或间接隐含规定,法院从"必要性"、"合理限制"、"法治国"、"本质内容"等条款解释出比例原则的情形最为多见.比例原则的本质在于调整手段与目的之间的理性关系,有助于为权力与权利的行使提供合理的尺度.比例原则不仅仅是一个行政法原则,其在公法和私法中都应有更加广阔的适用空间.尽管合比例性分析存在过大的主观性与不确定性,但比例原则具有不可替代的损益权衡功能,其不应也无法被成本收益分析所取代."二阶"说和"三阶"说的比例原则都存在逻辑缺陷,应确立同时评价目的正当性与手段正当性的"四阶"比例原则.     

The Presumption of Proportionality

This article challenges the assumption that the burden of demonstrating that a limitation of a fundamental right is proportionate rests on the public authority seeking to justify the limitation. After considering the operation of burdens and presumptions in European human rights case‐law it notes the difficulties British domestic courts have had in rigorously applying proportionality tests. It suggests that the concerns which lead judges to weaken the requirement of proportionality would be better met by recognising that certain circumstances give rise to a presumption of proportionality, where the burden of demonstrating disproportionality rests on the right‐holder. Five categories of case in which this applies are proposed, and one which has recently been judicially accepted is rejected. Clarifying the types of case in which a presumption of proportionality applies is a preferable strategy to blurring the standards of justification to be met by those seeking to limit the enjoyment of rights.¹     

When Trumps Clash: Dworkin and the Doctrine of Proportionality

If there is one point on which defenders and critics of the doctrine of proportionality agree, it is that Dworkin's rights as trumps model stands as a radical alternative to the doctrine. Those who are sympathetic to proportionality reject the rights as trumps model for failing to acknowledge that there are conditions under which a right may be justifiably infringed. In turn, those who regard rights as trumps reject the doctrine of proportionality for failing to take rights seriously. This paper argues that each of these views is mistaken. On the one hand, Dworkin's rights as trumps model elides with a prominent version of the proportionality doctrine. On the other, this version takes rights seriously.     

Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing

A basic principle in sentencing offenders is proportionality. However, proportionality judgments are often left to the discretion of the judge, raising familiar concerns of arbitrariness and bias. This paper considers the case for systematizing judgments of proportionality in sentencing by means of an algorithm. The aim of such an algorithm would be to predict what a judge in that jurisdiction would regard as a proportionate sentence in a particular case. A predictive algorithm of this kind would not necessarily undermine justice in individual cases, is consistent with a particularistic account of moral judgment, and is attractive even in the face of uncertainty as to the legitimate purposes of punishment.     

Restorative Justice,Consistency and Proportionality: Examining the Trade-off

Abstract

Restorative justice conferences that operate as sentencing mechanisms involve the making of a trade-off between empowering lay participants to make their own decisions, and the requirements of consistency and proportionality, which are established principles of sentencing. In current restorative justice practice, this trade-off tends to be made more in favour of consistency and proportionality, at the expense of the empowerment of lay participants.

Empowerment is central to key benefits of restorative justice, such as reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction. However, its importance to the effectiveness of restorative justice is not always properly acknowledged. In addition to this lack of acknowledgment, there are both conceptual and practical problems with the principles of consistency and proportionality (particularly in the way that they are presented when considered in relation to restorative justice) that are often overlooked. As a result, the tendency is for assumptions to be made about the necessary supremacy of these principles over empowerment. This paper urges more acknowledgement of the importance of empowerment in restorative justice, together with a greater appreciation of the problems with consistency and proportionality, with a view to challenging assumptions about the way that the trade-off must be made.     

Prisons,Proportionality and Recent Penal History

A leading aim of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was to install the principle of proportionality as the primary rationale for sentencing and to bring about a reduction in the use of imprisonment.  In the decade that followed the prison population in England and Wales rose steeply.  This article examines the reasons for the rising use of prison, in order to assess whether proportionality (or ‘just deserts’) was tried and failed.  It argues that in practice the proportionality principle was overwhelmed by other influences, and that deterrence and incapacitation were the main drivers of the increasing use of imprisonment.  The article goes on to argue that proportionality theories have within them the resources to produce penal moderation, notably the ‘drowning out’ argument, the human rights argument, and decrementalism.  The article concludes by rejecting the claim that proportionality theories are likely in practice to result in escalating punishment.     

Strict Liability and the Paradoxes of Proportionality

This essay explores the case against strict liability offenses as part of the more general debate about proportional punishment. This debate takes on a very different look in light of a formal result derived by the authors elsewhere, that is briefly summarized and whose implications are pursued here. Traditional objections that consequentialists have mounted against the deontologists’/retributivists’ defense of proportionality fall by the wayside, but a new threat to the proportionality requirement replaces it: the ease with which any such requirement can be circumvented.     

基、序、等──刑罚的相应性的蕴涵

本文对刑罚的相应性原则的蕴涵作了系统的探讨。作者认为,基的相应、序的相应与平等性是相应性的不可或缺的三项基本要求,基的相应性是刑量与罪量在绝对意义上的相应．序的相应是罪量与刑量在相对意义上的相应,平等性是相同的罪量应受的刑量应该一致,三者共同制约着立法上法定刑的确定与司法上判定刑的裁定。     

Proportionality in the Liability to Compensate

Law and Philosophy - There is widely thought to be a proportionality constraint on harming others in self-defense, such that an act of defensive force can be impermissible because the harm...     

Capitalist Punishment: Ethics and Private Prisons

One of the results of Western capitalism has been the increasing pressure for the privatization of the criminal justice system. Although there has long been private or nonprofit involvement in corrections, a newer response has been to turn entire prisons over to private enterprise, or to pay private prisons to house state or federal inmates. Progressively, then, inmates once completely devalued as social junk are being valued as commodities to be sought after. This paper attempts to discuss a series of issues around private prisons. As we can only look at several issues in one paper, we shall concentrate our attention on construction, operating costs, accountability and broader ethical questions. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.