Retributivism and desert

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly

Volumn 81, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 189-214

  Shafer Landau, Russ ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60949475201     PISSN: 02790750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0114.00102     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Jean Hampton, "A New Theory of Retribution," in C. Morris and R. Frey, eds., Liability and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 377-414;
2. Immanuel Kant, Metaphysical First Principles of the Doctrine of Right, sections 331-7;
3. John Kleinig, Punishment and Desert (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973);
4. G. W. F Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, section 100ff;
5. H. J. McCloskey, "A Non-Utilitarian Approach to Punishment," Inquiry 8 (1965), pp. 239-55;
6. Michael Moore, "The Moral Worth of Retribution," in F. Schoeman, ed., Responsibility, Character and the Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 179-219;
7. Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 363-97;
8. Igor Primoratz, Justifying Legal Punishment (London: Humanities Press, 1989);
9. A. von Hirsch, Doing Justice (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976).
10. Herbert Morris, "A Paternalistic Theory of Punishment," American Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1981), pp. 263-71;
11. Jean Hampton, "The Moral Education Theory of Punishment," Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1985), pp. 208-38;
12. R. A. Duff, Trials and Punishments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
13. G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, section 215,
14. Michael Davis, "Harm and Retribution," Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (1986), pp. 236-66.
15. David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), pp. 102-53.
16. J. Reiman, "Justice, Civilization and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag," Philosophy and Public, Affairs 14 (1985), pp. 115-48.
17. Nozick, Philosophical Explanations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 363-97, esp. pp. 363-5, 388-90.
18. Hampton, "A New Theory of Retribution," in C. Morris and R. Frey, eds., Liability and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 377-414, esp. at 400-1.
19. J. D. Mabbott, in "Punishment," Mind 48 (1939), pp. 150-67.
20. David Dolinko, "Some Thoughts about Retributivism," Ethics 101 (1991), pp. 535-57, at 549-54.
21. Waldon, "Tex Talionis," Arizona Law Review 34 (1992), pp. 25-51.
22. Rawls, "Two Concepts of Rules," Philosophical Review 44 (1955), pp. 3-13;
23. H. L. A. Hart, "Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment," in Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 1-27.
24. Joel Feinberg, "Justice and Personal Desert," in Doing and Deserving (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970),
25. Douglas Husak, "Why Punish the Deserving?" Nous 26 (1993), pp. 447-64.
26. Kleinig, Punishment and Desert (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), pp. 124ff.
27. Feinberg, "Equal Punishment for Failed Atempts: Some Bad but Instructive Arguments Against It," Arizona Law Review 37 (1995), pp. 117-33.
28. Herbert Morris, "Persons and Punishment," Monist 52 (1968). pp. 475-501,
29. J. Finnis, "The Restoration of Retribution," Analysis 32 (1972), pp. 131-5;
30. J. G. Murphy, Retribution, Justice and Therapy (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979), pp. 77-115, 223-49;
31. W. Sadurski, Giving Desert its Due (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985), pp. 221-60;
32. G. Sher, Desert (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 69-90;
33. M. Davis, "How to Make the Punishment Fit the Crime," Ethics 93 (1983), pp. 726-52,
34. "Criminal Desert and Unfair Advantage: What's the Connection?" Law and Philosophy 12 (1993), pp. 133-56.
35. Ernest van den Haag "Refuting Reiman and Nathanson," Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1985), pp. 165-76.