Duff on the Legitimacy of Punishment of Socially Deprived Offenders

Duff offered an argument for the conclusion that just or legitimate punishment of socially deprived offenders in our unjust society is impossible. One of the claims in his argument is that our courts have the standing to blame an offender only if our polity has the right to do so since our courts are acting as the representatives of, or to use the exact phrases by Duff, “in the name of”, or “on behalf of”, the whole polity. In this paper I will challenge that claim. I will argue that the courts can be seen as acting, not on behalf of the whole polity, but only on behalf of a subset of its citizens, namely, the just citizens (i.e. the citizens who cannot be seen to have wronged the deprived offenders).     

Bennett’s Expressive Justification of Punishment

In this paper, I will critically assess the expressive justification of punishment recently offered by Christopher Bennett in The Apology Ritual and a number of papers. I will first draw a distinction between three conceptions of expression: communicative, motivational, and symbolic. After briefly demonstrating the difficulties of using the first two conceptions of expression to ground punishment and showing that Bennett does not ultimately rely on those two conceptions, I argue that Bennett’s account does not succeed because he fails to establish the following claims: (1) punishment is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing; and (2) punishment is permissible if it is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing.     

Mainstreaming responsible conduct of research education in Malaysia

Trust is the bedrock of research, built on honesty, responsibility, accountability, and transparency. When embraced by all researchers and embedded in all aspects of research, these values help ensure that research has a positive impact on the research community, public, and policy makers, thereby enabling discoveries and innovations to enhance the well-being of humanity.     

Punishment and Bad Upbringing

This article examines whether bad upbringing (or what is sometimes called a “rotten social background”) affects just or deserved punishment. There are two possible rationales for this claim. First, it may be argued that an offender’s blameworthiness for his choice to offend is reduced if he had a bad upbringing; second, it may be argued that fairness requires us to impose a less severe punitive burden on an offender with a bad upbringing, even if he is no less blameworthy for his crime. The article rejects both of these rationales.     

Defining, assigning and designing sex

This article challenges the distinction the law draws between male and female. It focuses on the legal and medical treatment of intersexual people. Analysing the nature and rate of intersexuality it argues that there is a significant number of people who cannot be described as either male or female and instead exhibit a range of sexual characteristics. Until recently the law and medicine have insisted that intersexual people should be categorized as either male or female. Surgery was performed to ensure that they had the appearance assumed to be the 'norm' for a man or woman and the law followed this medical assignment of sex. Over the last couple of years the established medical practice and the legal treatment have been challenged. This article discusses the nature of these challenges and argues that there is a strong case for rejecting the traditional legal and medical approach to intersexual people. Cosmetic surgery on intersexual babies should be delayed until the individual is old enough to be able to choose their own sexual identity, which may be neither male nor female. The insistence that every person must either be male or female is no longer supportable in medical or social terms and a much wider range of sexual identities must be recognized by the law.     

“Extremely Rightful” Resistance: Land Appropriation and Rural Agitation in Contemporary Vietnam

Building on ethnographic fieldwork in a northern Vietnamese village, this article explores a rural protest against the appropriation of arable land for a development project. The focus is on villagers’ collective memories of an exceptional protest staged in 2010. The aim of the protest was to pressure local district authorities to increase the compensation villagers agreed to take three years earlier. While originally accepting compensation when their holdings were appropriated to build an industrial park, they later considered that the compensation paid was unfair and that some funds were misappropriated. They were aware that the likelihood of getting additional compensation was small and the risk of repression high. In tracing their struggle, the article argues that villagers did not seek to retain land as their primary subsistence source or as cherished ancestral land. Neither were they driven by an abstract sense of justice. Rather, they represented themselves as active, responsible decision-makers, determined to risk their own safety to bring their family a better future. They therefore employed an “extremely rightful” form of resistance rarely documented in the scholarship on Asia. They not only confined actions within officially sanctioned channels, but also underplayed all oppositional intentions against central and local authorities.