Retributivism, Consequentialism, and the Risk of Punishing the Innocent: The Troublesome Case of Proxy Crimes

Article Sidebar

PDF Full text
Published: Oct 4, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1099
Keywords:
philosophy of criminal law, retributivism, consequentialism, proxy crimes, evidentiary threshold

Main Article Content

Piotr Bystranowski
Jagiellonian University, Department of Legal Theory

Abstract

This paper discusses differences between two major schools in philosophy of criminal law, retributivism and consequentialism, with regard to the risk of (unintentionally) punishing the innocent. As it is argued, the main point of departure between these two camps in this respect lies in their attitude towards the high evidentiary threshold in a criminal trial: while retributivism seems to strongly support setting this standard high, consequentialists may find it desirable to relax it in some cases. This discussion is set in the context of proxy criminalization, i.e. a situation, in which some suspicious behaviour (i.e. behaviour that is only in some correlation with wrongful conduct, while not being substantially wrongful in itself) is criminalized. Since proxy criminalization may be understood as an effective lowering of the evidentiary threshold, its employment is justifiable from the consequentialist perspective, while being highly problematic for the retributivists.

Article Details

How to Cite
“Retributivism, Consequentialism, and the Risk of Punishing the Innocent: The Troublesome Case of Proxy Crimes”. 2017. Diametros, no. 53 (October): 26-49. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1099.
Issue
No. 53 (2017)
Section
Ethics and Uncertainty

By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Author Biography

Piotr Bystranowski, Jagiellonian University, Department of Legal Theory

Piotr Bystranowski, PhD Candidate
Jagiellonian University
Department of Legal Theory
ul. Bracka 12
31-007 Kraków
Poland

E-mail: piotr.bystranowski@emle.eu

How to Cite

“Retributivism, Consequentialism, and the Risk of Punishing the Innocent: The Troublesome Case of Proxy Crimes”. 2017. Diametros, no. 53 (October): 26-49. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1099.
Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Alexander L. (1983), “Retributivism and the Inadvertent Punishment of the Innocent,” Law and Philosophy 2 (2): 233–246.

Alexander L., Kessler Ferzan K. (2013), “Beyond the Special Part,” [in:] Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law, R.A. Duff, S. Green (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 253–278.

Becker G.S. (1968), “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” Journal of Political Economy 76 (2): 169–187.

Bentham J. (1864), Theory of Legislation, trans. R. Hildreth, Trübner & Co., London (Original work published 1802).

Carrit E.F. (1947), Ethical and Political Thinking, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Duff R.A. (2005), “Strict Liability, Legal Presumptions, and the Presumption of Innocence,” [in:] A.P. Simester (ed.), Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 125–149.

Duff R.A. (2007), Answering for Crime: Resposibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland (OR).

Duff R.A., Hoskins Z. (2017), “Legal Punishment,” [in:] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment [Accessed 7.9.2017].

Duff R.A., Farmer L., Marshall S., Tadros V. (2007), The Trial on Trial: Volume 3. Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland (OR).

Ehrlich I., Posner R.A. (1974), “An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking,” The Journal of Legal Studies 2 (1): 257–286.

Epps D. (2015), “The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice,” Harvard Law Review 128 (4): 1065–1151.

Hart H.L.A. (1968), Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press, New York.

Husak D. (2005), “Malum Prohibitum and Retributivism,” [in:] Defining Crimes: Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law, R.A. Duff (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 65–90.

McAdams R.H. (2005), “The Political Economy of Entrapment,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 96 (1): 107–186.

Kaplow L. (1992), “Rules versus Standards: An Economic Analysis,” Duke Law Journal 42 (3): 557–629.

Kaplow L. (1999), “General Characteristics of Rules,” [in:] Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. 5, The Economics of Crime and Litigation, B. Bouckaert, G.D. Geest (eds), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham: 502–528.

Kaplow L. (2012), ”Burden of Proof,” The Yale Law Journal 121 (4): 738–859.

Kaplow L., Shavell S. (2002), Fairness versus Welfare, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Laudan L. (2012), “Put ‘Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ out to Pasture?” [in:] The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, A. Marmor (ed.), Routledge, New York: 317–332.

Lippke R.L. (2016), Taming the Presumption of Innocence, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Moore M.S. (1997), Placing Blame: A General Theory of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Polinsky A.M., Shavell S. (2000), “The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law,” Journal of Economic Literature 38 (1): 45–76.

Posner R.A. (2010), Economic Analysis of Law, 8th ed., Aspen Casebooks, New York.

Rawls J. (1955), “Two Concepts of Rules,” The Philosophical Review 64 (1): 3–32.

Roberts P. (2005), “Strict Liability and the Presumption of Innocence: An Exposé of Functionalist Assumptions,” [in:] Appraising Strict Liability, A.P. Simester (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 151–194.

Robinson P.H. (2008), Distributive Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schauer F. (1991), Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-based Decision-making in Law and in Life, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Schauer F. (2003), Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Smilansky S. (1990), “Utilitarianism and the ‘Punishment’ of the Innocent: The General Problem,” Analysis 50 (4): 256–261.

Stuntz W.J. (2001), “The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law,” Michigan Law Review 100 (3): 505–600.

Tadros V. (2006), “Rethinking the Presumption of Innocence,” Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2): 193–213.

Tadros V., Tierney S. (2004), “The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act,” The Modern Law Review 67 (3): 402–434.

Teichman D. (forthcoming), Convicting With Reasonable Doubt: An Evidentiary Theory of Criminal Law, forthcoming at Notre Dame Law Review, URL = https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2932743 [Accessed 19.9.2017].

Teichman D., Zamir E. (2014), “Judicial Decision Making: A Behavioral Perspective,” [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, D. Teichman, E. Zamir (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 664–702.

Tomlin P. (2013), “Extending the Golden Thread? Criminalization and the Presumption of Innocence,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 21 (1): 44–66.

Tribe L. (1970), “An Ounce of Detention: Preventive Justice in the World of John Mitchell,” Virginia Law Review 56 (3): 371–407.

Zamir E., Harlev E., Ritov I. (2016/2017), “New Evidence About Circumstantial Evidence,” Law & Psychology Review 41: 107–158.

Zamir E., Ritov I., Teichman D. (2014), “Seeing is Believing: The Anti-Inference Bias,” Indiana Law Journal 89 (1): 195–229.