Retribution Justice And Therapy

One might legitimately ask what reasons other than vanity could prompt an author to issue a collection of his previously published essays. The best reason, I think, is the belief that the essays hang together in such a way that, as a book, they produce a whole which is in a sense greater than the sum of its parts. When this happens, as I hope it does in the present case, it is because the essays pursue related themes in such a way that, together, they at least form a start toward the development of a systematic theory on the common foundations supporting the particular claims in the particular articles. With respect to this collection, the essays can all be read as particular ways of pursuing the following general pattern of thought: that a commitment to justice and a respect for rights (and not social utility) must be the foundation of any morally acceptable legal order; that a social contractarian model is the best way to illuminate this foundation; that a retributive theory of punish ment is the only theory of punishment resting on such a foundation and thus is the only morally acceptable theory of punishment; that the twentieth century's faddish movement toward a "scientific" or therapeutic response to crime runs grave risks of undermining the foundations of justice and rights on which the legal order ought to rest; and, finally, that the legitimate worry about the tendency of the behavioral sciences to undermine the values of

Jeffrie G. Murphy's second collection of essays further pursues the topics of punishment and retribution that were explored in his 1979 collection Retribution, Justice and Therapy. Murphy now explores these topics in the context of political philosophy as well as moral philosophy, and he now begins to develop some doubts about the version of the retributive theory with which his name has long been associated.

There are nearly two million inmates in America today. Are there better alternatives to incarceration? Criminal Justice: Retribution vs. Restoration presents new answers and unconventional suggestions addressing America’s overcrowded prisons and jails, high recidivism rates, and weakened family and community relationships with ex-prisoners. Experts in the field discuss the benefits and failures of America’s criminal justice system at various times in history and today, then explore possibilities to improve on that system. This groundbreaking book introduces encouraging, therapeutic approaches to criminal justice that include treatment, rehabilitation, and the direct involvement the victims, the families, and the communities. Criminal Justice looks at America’s over-reliance on punishment and retribution as the means of responding to prevalent social problems and examines the justice system’s tendency to incarcerate—rather than treat—minority, mentally ill, poor, and drug-dependent offenders. The authors—who are all active in some field of criminal justice—argue for a restorative model of correction that is more humane to both offenders and victims. This model opens up dialogue between offenders and their victims, families, and communities by promoting hallmark programs, including victim offender mediation, conferencing, peacemaking circles, restitution, and community projects and services. Criminal Justice includes such intriguing topics as: the social costs and moral economy of incarceration drug policy—should drug users be incarcerated or rehabilitated? the potential of restorative justice—a first-hand account from a prison inmate restorative justice and faith communities the practice and efficacy of restorative justice the path from fury to forgiveness—the emotions of the mother of a murdered child strategies for creating safe and just communities women in prison—their special needs both during incarceration and after re-entry social work and criminal justice—how they work together grassroots advocacy for criminal justice reform—a look back over the last 30 years by the founders of CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants) This book’s foundation rests on the Biblical concepts of restoration, healing, forgiveness, reconciliation, and responsibility. Criminal Justice: Retribution vs Restoration is an eye-opening look at the negative effects of our current system of blame and punishment and offers hope for better, more humane methods in the future. This holistic, empowering, and strengths-based perspective offers insight and suggestions that are valuable for students, social workers, policymakers, and criminal justice professionals.

This book discusses whether a system of criminal punishment can be justified within our legal system.

In general, there are two ways in which punishment is justified. Forward-looking justifications look to the good results that punishment brings about and that therefore occur after it. These results include the wrongdoer being deterred, incapacitated, or improved, as well as the deterrence of would-be wrongdoers, a decrease in costs associated with crime prevention, less fear in the community, and the promotion of hatred and disgust for actions that victimize others. In contrast, backward-looking justifications look to events that occurred before the punishment. On this approach, punishment is not justified via the good results that it brings about. The dominant backward-looking justification is retributivism. According to it, the wrongdoer in virtue of his past act deserves punishment and this desert justifies punishment. This book is an in-depth defense of retributivism. Since punitive desert lies at the heart of retributivism, it is important to provide an analysis of it. This is the focus of the first part of the book. I argue that punitive desert has to do with punishment being an intrinsically valuable event, where its value results from its standing in a certain relation to a person's having culpably performed a wrongdoing. I argue that this type of desert does not by itself contain moral duties to act in any way. In particular, it does not impose on someone the duty to punish a wrongdoer. This results in retributivism being more complex than the traditional accounts, since it must therefore involve duties that refer to but are not constituted by punitive desert. I also argue that punitive desert is independent of the wrongdoer's moral character and instead rests solely on a person's acts. Lastly, I argue that the value of punitive desert cannot be accounted for via more fundamental moral considerations. This results in punitive desert being a rather primitive moral notion in that it is not justified via more fundamental moral values. Like other intrinsically good things, e.g. friendship, and other intrinsically bad things, e.g. promise-breaking, punitive desert can be used to explain why certain states of affairs are both good and right.--Adapted from introduction.

The question "What can justify criminal punishment ?" becomes especially insistent at times, like our own, of penal crisis, when serious doubts are raised not only about the justice or efficacy of particular modes of punishment, but about the very legitimacy of the whole penal system. Recent theorizing about punishment offers a variety of answers to that question-answers that try to make plausible sense of the idea that punishment is justified as being deserved for past crimes; answers that try to identify some beneficial consequences in terms of which punishment might be justified; as well as abolitionist answers telling us that we should seek to abolish, rather than to justify, criminal punishment. This book begins with a critical survey of recent trends in penal theory, but goes on to develop an original account (based on Duff's earlier Trials and Punishments) of criminal punishment as a mode of moral communication, aimed at inducing repentance, reform, and reconciliation through reparation-an account that undercuts the traditional controversies between consequentialist and retributivist penal theories, and that shows how abolitionist concerns can properly be met by a system of communicative punishments. In developing this account, Duff articulates the "liberal communitarian" conception of political society (and of the role of the criminal law) on which it depends; he discusses the meaning and role of different modes of punishment, showing how they can constitute appropriate modes of moral communication between political community and its citizens; and he identifies the essential preconditions for the justice of punishment as thus conceived-preconditions whose non-satisfaction makes our own system of criminal punishment morally problematic. Punishment, Communication, and Community offers no easy answers, but provides a rich and ambitious ideal of what criminal punishment could be-an ideal of what criminal punishment cold be-and ideal that challenges existing penal theories as well as our existing penal theories as well as our existing penal practices.

It is often assumed that the law and religion address different spheres of human life. Religion and ethics articulate complex systems of moral reasoning that concern norms, deliberation of ends, cultivation of disposition, and transformation of moral agency. Law, in contrast, seeks to govern human conduct through procedural justice, rights, and public good. Doing Justice to Mercy challenges this assumption by presenting the reader with an urgent conversation between the law and religion that yields a constructive approach, both theoretically and practically, to the complex role of mercy in our legal process. Authored by legal practitioners, activists, and theorists in addition to theologians and ethicists, the essays collected here are informed by timeless principles, and yet they could not be timelier. The trend in sentencing moves toward an increased severity, and the number of incarcerated people in the United States is at an all-time high. In the half-decade since 9/11, moreover, homeland security has established itself as a permanent fixture in our lives. In this atmosphere, the current volume seeks initially to clarify how justice and mercy intertwine in relation to a number of issues, such as rehabilitation, the death penalty, domestic violence, and war crimes. Exploring the legal, philosophical, and theological grounds for mercy in our courts, the discussion then moves to the practical ways in which mercy may be implemented. Contributors:Marc Mauer, The Sentencing Project * Lois Gehr Livezey, McCormick Theological Seminary * Ernie Lewis, Public Advocate, Commonwealth of Kentucky * Jonathan Rothchild, Loyola Marymount University * Albert W. Alschuler, Northwestern University School of Law * David Scheffer, Northwestern University School of Law * David Little, Harvard Divinity School * Matthew Myer Boulton, Andover Newton Theological School * Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary * Sarah Coakley, Cambridge University * William Schweiker, University of Chicago Divinity School * Kevin Jung, College of William and Mary * Peter J. Paris, Princeton Theological Seminary * W. Clark Gilpin, University of Chicago Divinity School * William C. Placher, Wabash College