One of the more notorious passages in Kant occurs in the Doctrine of Right where he claims that ‘bloodguilt’ will cling to members of a dissolving society if they fail to execute the last murderer (MM, 6: 333). Although this is the most famous, bloodguilt appears in three other passages in Kant’s writings. These have received little attention in Kant scholarship. In this article, I examine these other passages and argue that bloodguilt functions as a symbol for the demandingness of (...) justice. I then offer a sympathetic interpretation of the passage from the Doctrine of Right. (shrink)

This paper describes developments in punishment theory since the middle of the twentieth century. After the mid–1960s, what Stanley I. Benn called “preventive theories of punishment”—whether strictly utilitarian or more loosely consequentialist like his—entered a long and steep decline, beginning with the virtual disappearance of reform theory in the 1970s. Crowding out preventive theories were various alternatives generally (but, as I shall argue, misleadingly) categorized as “retributive”. These alternatives include both old theories (such as the education theory) resurrected after many (...) decades in philosophy’s graveyard and some new ones (such as the fairness theory). Only in the last decade or so have new vares o “consequentialism” appeared to dilute a debate among philosophers that had become almost entirely about “retributivism”. I shall describe this trend in more detail. The description will be less an update of my 1990 survey than a rethinking of it. The conclusion I draw from this rethinking is that we need to drop the utilitarian–retributivist (and nonconsequentialist–nonconsequentialist) distinction in favor of one sorting punishment theories according to whether they rely in part on empirical considerations (externalist theories) or instead rely (almost) entirely on conceptual relations (internalist theories). (shrink)

Immanuel Kant appears to make both retributivist and consequentialist statements about criminal punishment in the Metaphysical Foundations of the Doctrine of Right. In recent decades, some scholars have argued that Kant’s theory of criminal punishment is a hybrid of consequentialism and retributivism. B. Sharon Byrd’s interpretation is the most influential version of this view. I argue that the textual evidence in favor of the consequentialist side of the hybrid interpretation is weak and the evidence in favor of the retributivist side (...) is non-existent. There are also passages that contradict the interpretation. I conclude that the hybrid interpretation should be abandoned. (shrink)

In Kants Werk Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre scheint es so zu sein, dass er zum Strafrecht sowohl retributivistische als auch konsequentialistische Positionen bezieht. In den letzten Jahrzehnten, haben einige Forscher/innen dafür plädiert, dass Kants Theorie des Strafrechts daher ein Hybrid aus Konsequentialismus und Retributivismus sei. B. Sharon Byrds Auslegung ist die einflussreichste Version dieser Ansicht. Ich argumentiere demgegenüber dafür, dass die textlichen Beweise für die konsequentialistische Seite einer hybriden Auslegung nur schwach sind und dass Beweise für eine (...) retributivistische Seite einer hybriden Auslegung nicht vorhanden sind. Es gibt sogar Textstellen, die dieser Auslegung widersprechen. Ich schließe daraus, dass die hybride Auslegung aufgegeben werden sollte. (shrink)