The fundamental contrast between the ideas that punishment is morally justified because people have behaved wrongly (retributivist) and that punishment is morally justified only when it has good consequences (consequentialist/utilitarian) has long existed and most likely always will. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, retributivist ways of thinking became much more influential than they had been for the preceding century, but it is clear now that no paradigm shift from consequentialist to retributivist ideas occurred, and that thinking about punishment is in a period of flux.
Retributivism Has a Past: Has It a Future? reconsiders the extent of its resurgence and its current prospects. Essays by major figures in punishment theory, law, and philosophy and many prominent younger contributors to these debates engage with contemporary ideas about restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, rehabilitation of offenders, and mandatory punishments that are difficult to reconcile with retributive analytical frameworks. It is crucial to understand why and when individuals can be deprived of their property, their liberty, and their lives in the pursuit of collective interests, and this book grapples anew with contemporary debates over these perennial questions.
Preface ; One: Can Twenty-first Century Punishment Policies be Justified in Principle? ; Michael Tonry, University of Minnesota ; Two: What Does Wrongdoing Deserve? ; John Kleinig, CUNY ; Three: Is Twenty-first Century Punishment Post-Desert? ; Matt Matravers, York University ; Four: Responsibility, Restoration, and Retribution ; R. A. Duff, University of Minnesota ; Five: Punishment and Desert-adjusted Utilitarianism ; Jesper Ryberg, Roskilde University, Copenhagen ; Six: The Future of State Punishment: The Role of Public Opinion in Sentencing ; Julian V. Roberts, Oxford University ; Seven: A Political Theory of Imprisonment for Public Protection ; Peter Ramsay, London School of Economics ; Eight: Terror as a Theory of Punishment ; Alice Ristroph, Seton Hall University ; Nine: Can Above-desert Penalties Be Justified by Competing Deontological Theories? ; Richard S. Frase, University of Minnesota ; Ten: Never Mind the Pain; It's a Measure! Justifying Measures as Part of the Dutch Bifurcated System of Sanctions ; Jan de Keijser, University of Leiden ; Eleven: Retributivism, Proportionality, and the Challenge of the Drug Court Movement ; Douglas Husak, Rutgers University ; Twelve: Drug Treatment Courts as Communicative Punishment ; Michael M. O'Hear, Marquette University ; Thirteen: Reflections on Punishment Futures: The Desert-Model Debate and the Importance of the Criminal Law Context ; Andreas von Hirsch, Cambridge University
