Lecture 3.doc

4 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Woodsworth College Courses
William Watson

LastLectureReview: - assuming that all the purposes are possible - they make sense -- assume they do what they are suppose to do --- give this...is making someone suffer intentionally justified? - retribution - non utilitarian - retribution has many parts to it and they don’t all do the same thing - concentrate more on the culpability principle --- only within retribution principle that the legal concept of ‘excuse’ (that someone should be less blameworthy) only makes sense in terms of retribution -- only when u deduce that someone deserves it that you can determine whether someone is less deserving of a certain punishment - definitions can’t do anything in arguments - avoid rhetorical questions - incorporate creative thinking --come up with own twist using existing arguments to support it - no use of first person/opinion - Question: - Is retribution worth achieving? (moral philosophical -- making someone suffer bc they deserve it?) Are there other purposes? (utilitarian) - have to say what you will do if and when these purposes clash (if you are also advocating for retribution) - cite properly -- APA + cite page # (see front of book) -- cite original source/article - eventually all forms of punishment (historical) coalesced into a doctrine of retribution - punish people as they deserve - Enlightenment: human beings are rational -- a rational govt is one that harnesses human beings rationale -- deterrence --- only reason ppl commit crime is bc punishment is not as severe and they are unlikely to be caught - we have rational capacities -- we can devise ways of improving ourselves to be less irrational and dangerous -- gives rise to reform/rehabilitation - deprivation of liberty was the punishment --- fills 2 purposes -- can take ppl away fro society to reform them and can keep the public safe -- ensure deterrence - notion of reform/rehab continues but in diff ways: - notion of psychological rehabilitation = prison itself is not helpful, but keep them there to treat them (regrettable that you have to lock them up, but allows you to administer treatment) - return of the notion of retribution -- ppl should be punished just as much as they deserve bc fear that rehab will lead to over-punishing or under-punish -- also thought rehab does not achieve anything - incapacitation --- if ppl are imprisoned it limits the harm they can do - restoration --- you can draw upon Aboriginal ways of doing justice -- seeking reconciliation between victim and offender -- not seeking justice--- idea that the guilty party needs to take responsibility -- negotiate with the victim and wider community -- they action occurs in the sentencing circle -- no longer concerned with the questions of if it is fair (diff offenders getting similar sentences) - the message of deterrence -- your crime is rational but we’re going to make the punishment so bad you won’t want to do it - denunciation -- we want to let you know that what u did is morally reprehensible -- need to sink that in your head so you won’t do it again -- make u aware how seriously the community and courts take that violation -- works well with new/hidden crime SociologicalTheoriesofPunishment - does not say why people create crime nor does it say how we should reduce crime - attempts to answer the question: in what sense does a punishment system rise out of a social system? what is the relationship between the two? - how do we decipher how the punishment system works in relation to the social system? LiberalPluralism - explanatory framework - under any social circumstance, diff individuals and groups have more or less access to the levels of decision making - in liberal democracies, the various groups/interests, have more equal access than in other systems - diff groups have diff power into the decision making (oppressed minorities don’t have as much power) - if you want to understand the outcome/decisions, you have to understand the process -- how certain groups were able to have an influence on the system ---dynamics of decision making - e.g. women in a patriarchal system --- don’t assume women don’t have any say/power - punishment systems are a series of decisions -- track through and understand the ways in which patterns shift, various ppl come to have more influence -- why certain circumstances might give a particular perspective more leverage -- don’t assume that certain groups have no say - liberal pluralists won’t say parents are not the dominant decision making force in the family conferencing system (how they run their fam) -- does not mean the children are not having a say - they are having a say bc of the system of decision making - in order to understand the immediate decisions, you look at diff figures and their levels of power influences the decisions - punishment systems reflect the social system in that diff groups/parties/perspectives play diff roles in trying to impact decisions that the gov’t
More Less

Related notes for WDW101Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.