[CP2]≡ [PDF] The Problem of Punishment David Boonin Books

The Problem of Punishment David Boonin Books

Download As PDF : The Problem of Punishment David Boonin Books

In this book, David Boonin examines the problem of punishment, and particularly the problem of explaining why it is morally permissible for the state to treat those who break the law in ways that would be wrong to treat those who do not. Boonin argues that there is no satisfactory solution to this problem and that the practice of legal punishment should therefore be abolished. Providing a detailed account of the nature of punishment and the problems that it generates, he offers a comprehensive and critical survey of the various solutions that have been offered to the problem and concludes by considering victim restitution as an alternative to punishment. Written in a clear and accessible style, The Problem of Punishment will be of interest to anyone looking for a critical introduction to the subject as well as to those already familiar with it.

The Problem of Punishment David Boonin Books

I think this book will be required reading for future work in moral philosophy of punishment, jurisprudence and for those general readers interested in the subject. The book is certainly clearly written enough and contains a paucity of jargon such that intelligent and educated general readers will understand it. The book goes through all the justifications so far raised in the philosophical and jurisprudential literature for legal punishment. It is very comprehensive covering tons of consequentialists, retributivist, communicative, educative, implicit consentual/contractual, and alternative theories of punishment.

In the end, Boonin argues that all fail to justify their aims and that state sanctioned punishment is always immoral. This is the "abolitionist solution" to the problem of punishment. As any good abolitionist treatise should, Boonin does not stop there; he outlines what institutions may be more rightfully justified to replace punishment (he argues for institutions of victim restitution) and gives some empirical evidence that such a system may work. The author is erudite on both the philosophical, legal and sociological literature on crime and punishment. Even if you do not agree with him that punishment is always immoral, you will appreciate Boonin's clear exposition of the landscape of arguments advocated by proponents on the different sides so far and you will have a road map of where to go from there. I found myself disagreeing with Boonin on his dichotomy between certain forms of restitution and punishment stemming from his definition of (legal) punishment but I can see that he gives at least a plausible argument for his definition.

I only wish the book went further outside of state-sanctioned punishment and into the realm of punishment in general to cover things like revenge and the like. Many of Boonin's arguments will have to be seriously modified or new arguments given or maybe some of his conclusions shall be reversed if non state-sanctioned punishment is included.

Product details Printed Access Code Publisher Cambridge University Press (June 5, 2012) Language English ISBN-10 0511819250

Tags : Amazon.com: The Problem of Punishment (9780511819254): David Boonin: Books,David Boonin,The Problem of Punishment,Cambridge University Press,0511819250,Jurisprudence & philosophy of law,PHILOSOPHY General,Social & political philosophy
People also read other books :

• When I Am Singing to You eBook Rebecca Burke
• Missy First Mission Missy the Werecat Book 3 (Audible Audio Edition) P G Allison Meghan Kelly Books
• The Bearded Goddess Androgynes goddesses and monsters in ancient Cyprus eBook MarieLouise Winbladh
• The Citroën and the Pomegranate A Short Story about Synchronicity edition by Matthew Felix Religion Spirituality eBooks
• Johnnie A Lion Shifter Gay Romance Siphon Book 1 edition by Cardeno C Romance eBooks

The Problem of Punishment David Boonin Books Reviews

Certainly worthwhile if you're interested in the book's subject. Very comprehensive, and while not scintillating, also very readable. Somewhat repetitive, but the arguments he makes should contribute a great deal to the debate.
This is one of David Boonin's more interesting books because the central thesis of the book, that people should not be punished for breaking the law, sounds extremely implausible at first, but once he spells out what his proposed alternative would look like it sounds considerably less implausible. This book is engaging to read, and in particular, the critiques of consequentialist defences of punishment are quite interesting. However, I feel that sometimes Boonin is a little too quick to dismiss a defence of punishment on the grounds that it does not pass the "entailment test", it does not entail that all offenders and only offenders may be punished. I believe he should give more consideration to the possibility that the defence might succeed in defending a view on which a class of people which is almost, but not quite, co-extensive with the class of offenders, may be punished. In general, I had the impression that this was not quite as rigorous as Boonin's other works. But it made for most interesting reading, particularly the final chapter where the theory of "pure restitution" is spelled out. I highly recommend this book as an interesting and compelling defence of a strikingly provocative and counter-intuitive thesis which should give much food for thought.
Since punishment is universally endorsed one wonders why anyone would bother to question the moral justification for it. David Boonin did so fearlessly, rationally, and persuasively in "The Problem of Punishment". In order to advance his thesis that it is morally wrong for the state to punish anyone, he began with a lucid study of the definition of punishment. This alone was a worthy philosophical exercise whether one agrees with his thesis or not. In this regard, he constantly contrasted the concept of punishment with established moral principles. The problem of punishment lies in drawing a line between two groups of citizens (and residents) - offenders and non-offenders. Setting people apart in this way, the state goes about not only harming one group, but intentionally doing so. The issue thus, is how does one find the moral justification to harm a group when it would clearly be morally wrong were it to do the same to the other group.

It may be easy to see that the idea of intentionally harming someone is wrong and many would simply shrug off incipient objections by holding that it is a necessary evil. That is a superficial response to the problem and indeed, proves the point Boonin wished to make, that punishment is an evil. The closest philosophical defence to this idea of "necessary evil" is the defence based on consequentialist arguments. Boonin addressed both Act and rule utilitarianism and meticulously built his arguments as to why he thought they were unjustifiable. He addresses some of the major objections to utilitarianism and explained his support for them; one such objection is that the application of utilitarianism insofar as it exempts the wrong if the consequence is that a greater good is achieved. That leads to the justification of punishing innocent people if the punishment of the innocent produces a greater good. He also reminded us of the distinction between "all murderers should be killed" and "all murderers should be killed because they are guilty of murder". It is the latter that must be justified in order to justify capital punishment.

Another justification closely analyzed is the principle of retributivism, often recognized by the principal principle of desert as justification. Boonin also discussed other forms of retributivism such as forfeiture based retributivism. This form essentially takes the position that if one kills, then he too may be killed. Boonin says that in the legal context, this is justified only if it is against the law to kill. He argued that if retributivism is a corrrect principle, then the state can punish a person for an immoral act. The problem is, not every immoral act is an illegal act. This destroys the very basis of desert based justification because by that, we are to avoid punishing an innocent person, and that is why we do not punish a person who is legally innocent.

Running through the set-up and then the flaws of the major justification for punishment, Boonin then examined other established solutions to the problem of punishment (for example, the solution based on `consent'); and finally, he explored and then dismissed the suggestion of a hybrid solution - when we find ourselves confronted with irremediable flaws in each of the main solutions, the tendency to ask if a combination might be the answer. Boonin explained why that can't be so, and he used the hybrid of consequentialism-retributivism model in illustration.

Boonin then summed up the big problem in the simple question, assuming that his arguments against the solutions were right, "What should we do?" It was a rhetorical question given the clear and meticulous arguments he made. Either we continue to punish and hope for the answer to emerge eventually, or we stop punishing people for breaking the law. He found the first morally reprehensible, but he acknowledged that most people would find the latter unacceptable. His provided two alternative answers. First, he theorized the principle of necessity as an excuse rather than a moral justification. This seemed somewhat dubious given his objection to punishment without a moral foundation. Hence this idea was given scarcely a couple of pages. His main alternative theory against punishment was based on an enhanced "victim-restitution" model. Instead of punishing the offender, should concentrate on repairing the harm to the victim of crime. Boonin argued that this is an attractive alternative. Restitution can erase the harm although it cannot erase the wrong. He reminded us that "punishment can no more erase a wrong than restitution." He was prepared to accept punishment as morally justifiable if it could erase the wrong.

This was a well thought through and argued book even if we might not agree with the author on every point, we might not likely find an answer to the jurisprudential problem of punishment ourselves. If this book interests you, I would also recommend H L A Hart's "Punishment and Responsibility" (1968), and C L Ten's "Crime, Guilt, and Punishment (1987), the latter, sadly, is out of print.
I think this book will be required reading for future work in moral philosophy of punishment, jurisprudence and for those general readers interested in the subject. The book is certainly clearly written enough and contains a paucity of jargon such that intelligent and educated general readers will understand it. The book goes through all the justifications so far raised in the philosophical and jurisprudential literature for legal punishment. It is very comprehensive covering tons of consequentialists, retributivist, communicative, educative, implicit consentual/contractual, and alternative theories of punishment.

In the end, Boonin argues that all fail to justify their aims and that state sanctioned punishment is always immoral. This is the "abolitionist solution" to the problem of punishment. As any good abolitionist treatise should, Boonin does not stop there; he outlines what institutions may be more rightfully justified to replace punishment (he argues for institutions of victim restitution) and gives some empirical evidence that such a system may work. The author is erudite on both the philosophical, legal and sociological literature on crime and punishment. Even if you do not agree with him that punishment is always immoral, you will appreciate Boonin's clear exposition of the landscape of arguments advocated by proponents on the different sides so far and you will have a road map of where to go from there. I found myself disagreeing with Boonin on his dichotomy between certain forms of restitution and punishment stemming from his definition of (legal) punishment but I can see that he gives at least a plausible argument for his definition.

I only wish the book went further outside of state-sanctioned punishment and into the realm of punishment in general to cover things like revenge and the like. Many of Boonin's arguments will have to be seriously modified or new arguments given or maybe some of his conclusions shall be reversed if non state-sanctioned punishment is included.