Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Competing Conceptions Of Modern Desert: Vengeful, Deontological, And Empirical, Paul H. Robinson
Competing Conceptions Of Modern Desert: Vengeful, Deontological, And Empirical, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
The dispute over the role desert should play, if any, in assessing criminal liability and punishment has a long and turbulent history. There is some indication that deserved punishment -- referred to variously as desert, just punishment, retributive punishment, or simply doing justice -- may be in ascendance, both in academic debate and in real world institutions. A number of modern sentencing guidelines have adopted it as their distributive principle. Desert is increasingly given deference in the purposes section of state criminal codes, where it can be the guiding principle in the interpretation and application of the code's provisions. Indeed, …
The Utility Of Desert, Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley
The Utility Of Desert, Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley
All Faculty Scholarship
The article takes up the debate between utility and desert as distributive principles for criminal liability and punishment and concludes that a utilitarian analysis that takes account of all costs and benefits will support the distribution of liability and punishment according to desert, or at least according to the principles of desert as perceived by the community. It reaches this conclusion after an examination of a variety of recent social science data. On the one hand, it finds the traditional utilitarian theories of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation to have little effect in many instances. It finds instead that the real …
The Role Of Harm And Evil In Criminal Law: A Study In Legislative Deception?, Paul H. Robinson
The Role Of Harm And Evil In Criminal Law: A Study In Legislative Deception?, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
What is the role of the occurrence of harm or evil in criminal law? What should it be? Answers to these questions commonly use the distinction between what is called an objective and a subjective view of criminality. To oversimplify, the objective view maintains that the occurrence of the harm or evil defined by the offense is highly relevant. The subjectivist view maintains that such harm or evil is irrelevant; only the actor's culpable state of mind regarding the occurrence of the harm or evil is important. The labels tend to overstate a rather subtle distinction. The objectivist or harmful …