Defending a communicative theory of punishment: the relationship between hard treatment and amends

4.00
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10545/611821
Title:
Defending a communicative theory of punishment: the relationship between hard treatment and amends
Authors:
Lee, Ambrose YK ( 0000-0002-8955-2711 )
Abstract:
According to communicative theories of punishment, legal punishment is pro tanto justified because it communicates the censure that offenders deserve for their crimes. The aim of this article is to offer a modest defence for a particular version of a communicative theory. This version builds on the one that has been advanced by Antony Duff. According to him, legal punishment should be understood as a kind of (secular) penitential burden that is placed upon offenders to censure them for their crimes, with the aims that they will then come to repent, reform themselves and reconcile with those whom they have wronged. This article departs from Duff’s version, however, by arguing that the penitential burdens in question should be understood more specifically in terms of the amends that offenders ought to make to apologise for their criminal wrongdoings. The article then attempts to address three potential objections to this revised version of the communicative theory.
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, Centre for Criminology
Citation:
Lee, A. (2017) 'Defending a communicative theory of punishment: the relationship between hard treatment and amends', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37 (1): 217-237.
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
Journal:
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Issue Date:
2016
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10545/611821
DOI:
10.1093/ojls/gqw003
Additional Links:
http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqw003
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
0143-6503; 1464-3820
Sponsors:
The Leverhulme Trust (ECF-2012-032)
Appears in Collections:
Research, Innovation and Academic Enterprise

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorLee, Ambrose YKen
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-06T13:21:05Zen
dc.date.available2016-06-06T13:21:05Zen
dc.date.issued2016en
dc.identifier.citationLee, A. (2017) 'Defending a communicative theory of punishment: the relationship between hard treatment and amends', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37 (1): 217-237.en
dc.identifier.issn0143-6503en
dc.identifier.issn1464-3820en
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ojls/gqw003en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/611821en
dc.description.abstractAccording to communicative theories of punishment, legal punishment is pro tanto justified because it communicates the censure that offenders deserve for their crimes. The aim of this article is to offer a modest defence for a particular version of a communicative theory. This version builds on the one that has been advanced by Antony Duff. According to him, legal punishment should be understood as a kind of (secular) penitential burden that is placed upon offenders to censure them for their crimes, with the aims that they will then come to repent, reform themselves and reconcile with those whom they have wronged. This article departs from Duff’s version, however, by arguing that the penitential burdens in question should be understood more specifically in terms of the amends that offenders ought to make to apologise for their criminal wrongdoings. The article then attempts to address three potential objections to this revised version of the communicative theory.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe Leverhulme Trust (ECF-2012-032)en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.relation.urlhttp://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqw003en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Oxford Journal of Legal Studiesen
dc.subjectPunishmenten
dc.subjectCommunicative theoriesen
dc.subjectHard treatmenten
dc.subjectPreventive deterrenceen
dc.subjectPenanceen
dc.subjectAmendsen
dc.titleDefending a communicative theory of punishment: the relationship between hard treatment and amendsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Oxford, Centre for Criminologyen
dc.identifier.journalOxford Journal of Legal Studiesen
All Items in UDORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.