Number of the records: 1
Good consequences
- 1.
SYSNO ASEP 0360865 Document Type J - Journal Article R&D Document Type Journal Article Subsidiary J Ostatní články Title Good consequences Author(s) Sobek, Tomáš (USP-I) ORCID Source Title Právník. - : Ústav státu a práva AV ČR, v. v. i. - ISSN 0231-6625
Roč. 150/1, č. 6/1 TLQ (2011), s. 3-30Number of pages 28 s. Language eng - English Country CZ - Czech Republic Keywords retributivist theories ; consequentialism ; legal theory Subject RIV AG - Legal Sciences CEZ AV0Z70680506 - USP-I (2005-2011) Annotation This essay considers the problem of justification of punishment. Philosophers of criminal law developed a whole range of competing theories, which answer this question by their own manner. Of course, each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses. Traditionally, the most pronounced among these theories are two, i.e. retributivism and consequentialism. If put very simply, the consequentialist justifications (e.g. Bentham, Sidgwick) of punishment lie in the fact that punishment is only justifiable on the basis of its good consequences, while retributivist theories (e.g. Kant, Hegel) present within their mainstream an opinion that punishment is justified only when a punished person deserves it. The author argues that we need a combined theory. Normative jurisprudence should not be satisfied with simple utilitarianism (maximization of social utility), but it should tie it to deontological constraints limitations, specifically to the requirement to respect an autonomy of an individual and his personal dignity. Workplace Institute of State and Law Contact Iveta Bůžková, iveta.buzkova@ilaw.cas.cz, Tel.: 221 990 714 Year of Publishing 2012
Number of the records: 1