A Theory of Legal Punishment

Mechanical Choices

10.1093/oso/9780190863999.001.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michael S. Moore

Keyword(s):

Common Sense ◽

Legal Punishment ◽

Common Causes ◽

Moral Blame ◽

The Brain ◽

Common Sense Psychology

This book assays how the remarkable discoveries of contemporary neuroscience impact our conception of ourselves and our responsibility for our choices and our actions. Dramatic (and indeed revolutionary) changes in how we think of ourselves as agents and as persons are commonly taken to be the implications of those discoveries of neuroscience. Indeed, the very notions of responsibility and of deserved punishment are thought to be threatened by these discoveries. Such threats are collected into four groupings: (1) the threat from determinism, that neurosciences shows us that all of our choices and actions are caused by events in the brain that precede choice; (2) the threat from epiphenomenalism, that our choices are shown by experiment not to cause the actions that are the objects of such choice but are rather mere epiphenomena, co-effects of common causes in the brain; (3) the threat from reductionist mechanism, that we and everything we value is nothing but a bunch of two-valued switches going off in our brains; and (4) the threat from fallibilism, that we are not masters in our own house because we lack the privileged knowledge of our own minds needed to be such masters. The book seeks to blunt such radical challenges while nonetheless detailing how law, morality, and common-sense psychology can harness the insights of an advancing neuroscience to more accurately assign moral blame and legal punishment to the truly deserving.

Download Full-text

Domestic politics and the power to punish: The case of national human rights institutions

Conflict Management and Peace Science ◽

10.1177/0738894217704632 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 36 (4) ◽

pp. 385-404 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ryan M. Welch

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Domestic Politics ◽

Past Research ◽

Domestic Institutions ◽

Electoral Institutions ◽

The Public ◽

Legal Punishment ◽

International Pressure ◽

National Human ◽

National Human Rights Institutions

Why do states give institutions the ability to legally punish them? While past research focuses on international pressure to delegate authority to third parties, I argue that domestic politics plays a key role. By viewing domestic politics through a principal–agent framework, I argue that the more accountable individual legislators remain to the public, the more likely it is that the legislature will delegate legal punishment authority. I focus on National Human Rights Institutions—domestic institutions tasked with protection and promotion of human rights—to build the argument. Electoral institutions that decrease monitoring of legislator agents, or institutional makeup that allows the executive to displace the public as the principal lead to National Human Rights Institutions without punishment power. Using Bayesian logistic analyses I test four hypotheses, all of which are in agreement with the argument.

Download Full-text

Victims of sexual abuse by catholic clerics and their needs for compensation

Temida ◽

10.2298/tem1403027h ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 27-48 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Deborah Hellmann

Keyword(s):

Sexual Abuse ◽

Restorative Justice ◽

Emotional Support ◽

Catholic Church ◽

Crime Victims ◽

Support Needs ◽

Legal Punishment ◽

Data Analyses ◽

Research Findings ◽

Victims Of Sexual Abuse

Crime victims hold several expectations regarding the compensation of the harm done to them. In this regard, it is important to distinguish between material (e.g. financial) and immaterial (e.g. emotional support) needs and forms of compensation. To explore the matching between desired and actually awarded compensation, data of a survey with N=104 victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clerics were analysed. Data analyses revealed that the respondents most often required an apology and reparation by the Catholic Church followed by wishes for financial redress. Those were in turn the needs most frequently met. The majority of the victims also desired an apology and reparation by the offender, legal punishment for the offender, and therapeutic help for themselves. However, these forms of compensation were only scarcely provided. Taking into account further victimological research, findings are discussed against the background of restorative justice.

Download Full-text