Fortifying the Self-Defense Justification of Punishment

Public Affairs Quarterly 31 (4) (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
David Boonin has recently advanced several challenges to the self-defense justification of punishment. Boonin argues that the self-defense justification of punishment justifies punishing the innocent, justifies disproportionate punishment, cannot account for mitigating excuses, and does not justify intentionally harming offenders as we do when we punish them. In this paper, I argue that the self-defense justification, suitably understood, can avoid all of these problems. To help demonstrate the self-defense theory’s attraction, I also develop some contrasts between the self-defense justification, Warren Quinn’s better known ‘auto-retaliator’ argument, and desert-based justifications of punishment. In sum, I show that the self-defense justification of punishment is more resilient than commonly supposed and deserves to be taken seriously as a justification of punishment.
Categories
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ZACFTS-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-02-28
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-02-28

Total views
42 ( #37,458 of 43,785 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #35,044 of 43,785 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.