Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Is Altruism Bad For Cooperation?, Sung-Ha Hwang, Samuel Bowles
Is Altruism Bad For Cooperation?, Sung-Ha Hwang, Samuel Bowles
Samuel Bowles
Some philosophers and social scientists have stressed the importance for good government of an altruistic citizenry that values the well being of one another. Others have emphasized the need for incentives that induce even the self interested to contribute to the public good. Implicitly most have assumed that these two approaches are complementary or at worst additive. But this need not be the case. Behavioral experiments find that if reciprocity-minded subjects feel hostility towards free riders and enjoy inflicting harm on them, near efficient levels of contributions to a public good may be supported when group members have opportunities to …
Punitive Damages--Developments In Section 1983 Cases, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz
Punitive Damages--Developments In Section 1983 Cases, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz
Martin A. Schwartz
No abstract provided.
Teshuva: A Look At Repentance, Forgiveness And Atonement In Jewish Law And Philosophy And American Legal Thought, Samuel J. Levine
Teshuva: A Look At Repentance, Forgiveness And Atonement In Jewish Law And Philosophy And American Legal Thought, Samuel J. Levine
Samuel J. Levine
Professor Levine examines the atonement model and its relevance to American law. He outlines and explains the necessary steps by the wrongdoer for atonement: repentance, apology, reparation and penance. The wronged party then has the obligation of reconciliation for the process to be complete. Despite the prominent position it has held for millennia in religious thinking, the atonement model is relatively new to American legal theory. Professor Stephen Garvey's attempt to offer a systematic depiction and analysis of the process of atonement and its possible relevance to American law appears to represent the most extensive effort to date. Any application …
Punitive Damages--Developments In Section 1983 Cases, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz
Punitive Damages--Developments In Section 1983 Cases, Eileen Kaufman, Martin A. Schwartz
Eileen Kaufman
No abstract provided.
Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right, Dan Markel, Chad Flanders, David C. Gray
Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right, Dan Markel, Chad Flanders, David C. Gray
David C. Gray
How central should hedonic adaptation be to the establishment of sentencing policy? In earlier work, Professors Bronsteen, Buccafusco, and Masur (BBM) drew some normative significance from the psychological studies of adaptability for punishment policy. In particular, they argued that retributivists and utilitarians alike are obliged on pain of inconsistency to take account of the fact that most prisoners, most of the time, adapt to imprisonment in fairly short order, and therefore suffer much less than most of us would expect. They also argued that ex-prisoners don't adapt well upon re-entry to society and that social planners should consider their post-release …
Retributivism For Progressives: A Response To Professor Flanders, David C. Gray, Jonathan Huber
Retributivism For Progressives: A Response To Professor Flanders, David C. Gray, Jonathan Huber
David C. Gray
In his engaging article "Retributivism and Reform," published in the Maryland Law Review, Chad Flanders engages two claims he ascribes to James Q. Whitman: 1) that American criminal justice is too "harsh," and 2) that Americans’ reliance on retributivist theories of criminal punishment is implicated in that harshness. In this invited response, to which Flanders subsequently replied, we first ask what "harsh" might mean in the context of a critique of criminal justice and punishment. We conclude that the most likely candidate is something along the lines of "disproportionate or otherwise unjustified." With this working definition in hand, we measure …
Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John F. Stinneford
Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
Although a century has passed since the Supreme Court started reviewing criminal punishments for excessiveness under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, this area of doctrine remains highly problematic. The Court has never answered the claim that proportionality review is illegitimate in light of the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning. The Court has also adopted an ever-shifting definition of excessiveness, making the very concept of proportionality incoherent. Finally, the Court’s method of measuring proportionality is unreliable and selfcontradictory. As a result, a controlling plurality of the Court has insisted that proportionality review be limited to a narrow class of cases. This …