‘Optimistic’ normative theories of criminal justice aim to justify criminal sanction in terms of its reprobative/rehabilitative value rather than its punitive nature as such. But do such theories accord with ordinary intuitions about what constitutes a ‘just’ response to wrongdoing? Recent empirical work on the psychology of punishers suggests that human beings have a ‘brutely retributive’ moral psychology, making them unlikely to endorse normative theories that sacrifice retribution for the sake of reprobation or rehabilitation; it would mean, for example, that (...) we cannot expect people to support such optimistic theories democratically, calling their feasibility into question. Taking the civic republican theory as an exemplar of optimistic theories, we argue that it does not fail this feasibility test. We review recent empirical research, including studies of our own, to support the claim that, far from being brute retributivists, human beings are generally satisfied only with punishment that delivers something other than mere retribution. And we show that this coheres very closely with the goals and policies that civic republicanism would support, as it may be expected to cohere also with other optimistic proposals. (shrink)

Philip Pettit has made central to modern republican theory a distinctive account of freedom—republican freedom. On this account, I am not free solely because I can make choices without interference. I am truly free, only if that non-interference does not itself depend on another’s forbearance. Pettit believes that the principal justification for the traditional focus of the criminal law is that it constitutes a bulwark against domination. I will, in part, be considering the merits of this claim. Is the importance (...) of the orthodox realm of the criminal law solely or mainly explained by the wish to protect people from domination? In short, the answer is that it is not. Across the board, the criminal law rightly protects us equally from threats to what Pettit calls ‘effective,’ as opposed to formal, republican freedom. I will develop my critique of Pettit’s account of criminal law, in part to raise questions about the role of ‘domination’ in political theory, and about whether it poses a significant challenge to liberal accounts of criminal law. (shrink)

Who is responsible for fighting domination? Answering this question, I argue, requires taking the structural dimension of domination seriously to avoid unwillingly reproducing domination in the nam...

Imagine you are walking through a park. Suddenly, a mugger points a gun at you, threatening to shoot you if you do not hand over your valuables. Is this an instance of domination? Many authors working within the neo-republican framework - including Philip Pettit himself - are inclined to say 'yes'. After all, the mugger case seems to be a paradigmatic example of what it means to be at someone's mercy. However, I argue that this conclusion is based on a (...) misleading, interactional account of domination that misconceives its structural character. Domination, I maintain, is a structurally constituted form of power. Whether the mugger in the park dominates you or not can only be established by analysing the wider power structures in which your interaction is embedded. (shrink)

Richard Dagger (in this issue) provides perhaps the most persuasive version of a ‘fair play’ theory of criminal punishment, grounded in an attractive liberal republican political theory. But, I argue, his version of the theory still faces serious objections: that its explanation of why some central mala in se are properly criminalised is still distorting, despite his appeal to the burdens of ‘general compliance’; and that it cannot adequately explain (as it should explain) the differential seriousness and wrongfulness of different (...) kinds of crime. (shrink)

Germany is joining a long list of European democracies that have modified or expressed a willingness to modify their citizenship laws to denationalize first and then prevent the return of or expel those citizens accused of having participated in terrorist activities abroad. The formal labelling of citizenship deprivation as an administrative measure outside the scope of criminal justice has prevented scholars of criminal law from undertaking a thorough scrutiny of its legitimacy. In this paper I seek to fill this gap. (...) Specifically, after demonstrating why deprivation of citizenship is a measure of a criminal nature, I argue against its legitimacy, either as a punishment or as a risk-based measure. Instead I propose that we should understand citizenship deprivation as a paradigmatic response from an illegitimate enemy criminal law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I claim that states that choose to denationalize terrorists should do it within the framework of a process with the highest (criminal procedural) guarantees. (shrink)

In the United States, convicted offenders frequently lose the right to vote, at least temporarily. Drawing on the common observation that citizens of color lose democratic rights at disproportionately high rates, this chapter argues that this punishment is problematic in non-ideal societies because of the way in which it diminishes the political power of marginalized groups and threatens to reproduce patterns of domination and subordination, when they occur. This chapter then uses the case of penal disenfranchisement to illustrate how idealized (...) discussions of deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution often ignore the relationship between punishment and social/political power, and thus systematically obscure morally significant aspects of our broader penal practices. (shrink)

El objetivo de este artículo es identificar las consideraciones de quiénes deben guiar la sanción o reforma de la ley penal. Este objetivo cobra relevancia si consideramos que las diferentes respuestas pueden impactar en las tasas de cumplimiento del derecho penal y en los niveles de coacción estatal arbitraria. Para ello, se analizarán algunas propuestas teóricas que se ubican en una recta cuyos extremos están ocupados, respectivamente, por el populismo y el elitismo penal. Estos argumentos son reconstruidos en el debate (...) sobre la reforma del Código Penal Argentino. En este debate, la disminución de la interferencia proveniente del delito y la disminución de la interferencia estatal arbitraria se presentan como objetivos incompatibles. En parte, ello se debe a que las propuestas teóricas que alimentan los argumentos del debate presentan algunas limitaciones para satisfacer ambas demandas. El republicanismo, a través de la defensa de una democracia deliberativa fuerte, tiene capacidad para satisfacer ambas demandas, aparentemente antagónicas. Sin embargo, esa capacidad se ve disminuida en sociedades desiguales. Por ello defenderé que una reforma guiada por aquella propuesta republicana tiene una capacidad que se limita a disminuir la interferencia estatal y mantener iguales los índices del delito. (shrink)

La censura penal en los estados liberales de derecho se ha justificado históricamente desde el concepto de bien jurídico y desde principio del daño, conforme la tradición sea alemana o anglosajona, respectivamente. Sin embargo, en las últimas décadas se observa que tales criterios no pueden hacer frente a nuevos problemas que presentan las sociedades modernas. Tal es el caso de las tipificaciones en forma de delitos acumulativos, es decir conductas que en sí mismas acarrean consecuencias lesivas muy pequeñas, pero que (...) sumadas a otras de igual naturaleza pueden producir graves afectaciones. La literatura ha proporcionado un profuso debate sobre este tema. Aquí se intentará proponer una construcción plausible que sea capaz de justificar esta clasede prohibiciones. Para ello se parte del modelo republicano, que adopta como ideal de libertad, la no dominación. Toda vez que al ser posible la inexistencia de interferencias pero que, sin embargo, una persona vea restringida su libertad por encontrarse bajo el poder de otro (dominio), la idea de “libertad como no dominación” parece más satisfactoria para garantizar buenas condiciones de vida a los sujetos. Se ensayarán dos respuestas, una que considera que la razón de la prohibición se encuentra en el efecto que cada acto produce junto a los demás; y otra, que sólo repara en las consecuencias del acto individual. (shrink)