Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Return of Lombroso? Ethical Aspects of Preventive Forensic Screening.Christian Munthe & Susanna Radovic - 2015 - Public Health Ethics 8 (3):270-283.
    The vision of legendary criminologist Cesare Lombroso to use scientific theories of individual causes of crime as a basis for screening and prevention programmes targeting individuals at risk for future criminal behaviour has resurfaced, following advances in genetics, neuroscience and psychiatric epidemiology. This article analyses this idea and maps its ethical implications from a public health ethical standpoint. Twenty-seven variants of the new Lombrosian vision of forensic screening and prevention are distinguished, and some scientific and technical limitations are noted. Some (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The consequentialist problem with prepunishment.Preston Greene - 2021 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):199-208.
    This paper targets a nearly universal assumption in the philosophical literature: that prepunishment is unproblematic for consequentialists. Prepunishment threats do not deter, as deterrence is traditionally conceived. In fact, a pure prepunishment legal system would tend to increase the criminal disposition of the grudgingly compliant. This is a serious problem since, from many perspectives, but especially from a consequentialist one, a primary purpose of punishment is deterrence. I analyze the decision theory behind pre and postpunishments, which helps clarify both what (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Can Retributivism and Risk Assessment Be Reconciled?Toby Napoletano & Hanna Kiri Gunn - 2024 - Criminal Justice Ethics 43 (1):37-56.
    In this paper we explore whether or not the use of risk assessment tools in criminal sentencing can be made compatible with a retributivist justification of punishment. While there has been considerable discussion of the accuracy and fairness of these tools, such discussion assumes that one’s recidivism risk is relevant to the severity of punishment that one should receive. But this assumption only holds on certain accounts of punishment, and seems to conflict with retributivist justifications of punishment. Drawing on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark