干旱区生态环境知识资源中心(Arid): EMPIRICAL DESERT, INDIVIDUAL PREVENTION, AND LIMITING RETRIBUTIVISM: A REPLY

Arid

DOI	10.1525/nclr.2014.17.2.312
	EMPIRICAL DESERT, INDIVIDUAL PREVENTION, AND LIMITING RETRIBUTIVISM: A REPLY
	Robinson, Paul H.; Barton, Joshua Samuel; Lister, Matthew
通讯作者	Robinson, PH
来源期刊	NEW CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSN	1933-4192
EISSN	1933-4206
出版年	2014
卷号	17 期号:2 页码:312-375
英文摘要	A number of articles and empirical studies over the past decade suggest a relationship between the criminal law's reputation for being just-its "moral credibility''-and its ability to gain society's deference and compliance through a variety of mechanisms that enhance the system's crime-control effectiveness. This has led to proposals for criminal liability and punishment rules to reflect lay intuitions of justice-"empirical desert''-as a means of enhancing the system's moral credibility. In a recent article, Christopher Slobogin and Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein (SBR) report seven sets of studies that, in their view, undermine these claims about empirical desert and moral credibility. Instead, say SBR, the studies support their own proposed distributive principle of "individual prevention.'' As this article shows, however, SBR have it wrong on both counts: not only do their studies actually confirm the crime-control power of empirical desert, but they provide no support for their own principle of individual prevention. Moreover, that principle, which focuses on an offender's dangerousness rather than his perceived desert, is erroneously described by SBR as "a sort of limiting retributivism.'' In reality, what SBR propose is a system based on dangerousness, where detention decisions are made at the back end by experts. Such an approach promotes the worst of the failed policies of the 1960s, and conflicts with the modern trend of encouraging more community involvement in criminal punishment, not less.
英文关键词	criminal law empirical desert individual prevention limiting retributivism
类型	Article
语种	英语
收录类别	ESCI
WOS记录号	WOS:000442633000005
WOS关键词	CRIMINAL-LAW ; PUNISHMENT ; SEVERITY ; DANGEROUSNESS ; DETERRENCE ; INTUITIONS ; HOMICIDE ; MOTIVES ; ALCOHOL
WOS类目	Law
WOS研究方向	Government & Law
资源类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/330974
作者单位	[Robinson, Paul H.] Univ Penn, Law, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA; [Barton, Joshua Samuel] Univ Penn, Law Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA; [Barton, Joshua Samuel] Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY USA; [Lister, Matthew] US Court Appeals 3rd Circuit, Philadelphia, PA USA
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Robinson, Paul H.,Barton, Joshua Samuel,Lister, Matthew. EMPIRICAL DESERT, INDIVIDUAL PREVENTION, AND LIMITING RETRIBUTIVISM: A REPLY[J],2014,17(2):312-375.
APA	Robinson, Paul H.,Barton, Joshua Samuel,&Lister, Matthew.(2014).EMPIRICAL DESERT, INDIVIDUAL PREVENTION, AND LIMITING RETRIBUTIVISM: A REPLY.NEW CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW,17(2),312-375.
MLA	Robinson, Paul H.,et al."EMPIRICAL DESERT, INDIVIDUAL PREVENTION, AND LIMITING RETRIBUTIVISM: A REPLY".NEW CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 17.2(2014):312-375.