TY - JOUR
T1 - Crimen publicum, poena forensis
T2 - Reassessing Kant's Theory of Criminal Law, in Line with Contemporary Philosophy of Punishment Debates
AU - Mitas, Stergios
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Philosophical debates on punishment mainly - and exhaustively - revolve around the traditional dipole “retribution - deterrence”; or, lately, seek for some alternative counter-proposal (e. g. the contemporary topic of “restorative justice”). In all sides of the debates, Kant is standardly depicted as the advocate of a traditional, outmost punitive theory of justice; the kind of heritage modern-day “retributivists” seek to reassess, while “preventive” or “restorative” justice defenders aim to abandon. In the present paper, we intend to scrutinize Kant's own views on crime and punishment, as an integral part of his overall legal-practical philosophy; and, by doing so, to address that Kant is not at all the blind retributivist the above theorists perceive; what is more, he sets a philosophical framework that is able to overcome the flaws of all three, standard conceptions of criminal justice (retributive, preventive and restorative). Finally, in the light of the above, we bring forth the aspects of this Kantian framework, that are useful in assessing current legal systems and required legal reforms.
AB - Philosophical debates on punishment mainly - and exhaustively - revolve around the traditional dipole “retribution - deterrence”; or, lately, seek for some alternative counter-proposal (e. g. the contemporary topic of “restorative justice”). In all sides of the debates, Kant is standardly depicted as the advocate of a traditional, outmost punitive theory of justice; the kind of heritage modern-day “retributivists” seek to reassess, while “preventive” or “restorative” justice defenders aim to abandon. In the present paper, we intend to scrutinize Kant's own views on crime and punishment, as an integral part of his overall legal-practical philosophy; and, by doing so, to address that Kant is not at all the blind retributivist the above theorists perceive; what is more, he sets a philosophical framework that is able to overcome the flaws of all three, standard conceptions of criminal justice (retributive, preventive and restorative). Finally, in the light of the above, we bring forth the aspects of this Kantian framework, that are useful in assessing current legal systems and required legal reforms.
KW - Abschreckung
KW - Deterrence
KW - Immanuel Kant
KW - Philosophie des Strafens
KW - Philosophy of punishment
KW - Restorative justice Schlagworte: Immanuel Kant
KW - Retribution
KW - Vergeltung
KW - Wiederherstellende Gerechtigkeit
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098582047&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.25162/ARSP-2020-0027
DO - 10.25162/ARSP-2020-0027
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85098582047
SN - 0001-2343
VL - 106
SP - 554
EP - 562
JO - Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie
JF - Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie
IS - 4
ER -