Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2312655
 


 



Empirical Desert, Individual Prevention, and Limiting Retributivism: A Reply


Paul H. Robinson


University of Pennsylvania Law School

Joshua Samuel Barton


Sullivan & Cromwell - New York Headquarters

Matthew J. Lister


University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department

Spring 2014

New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 17, Pg. 312, Spring 2014.
U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 13-19

Abstract:     
A number of articles and empirical studies over the past decade, most by Paul Robinson and co-authors, suggest a relationship between the criminal law’s reputation for being just — its "moral credibility" — and its ability to gain society’s deference and compliance through a variety of mechanisms that enhance its crime-control effectiveness. This has led to proposals to have criminal liability and punishment rules reflect lay intuitions of justice — "empirical desert" — as a means of enhancing the system's moral credibility. In a recent article, Christopher Slobogin and Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein (SBR) report seven sets of studies that, they argue, undermine these claims about empirical desert and moral credibility and instead support their own proposed distributive principle of "individual prevention." As this article shows, however, SBR have it essentially backwards: not only do their studies actually confirm the crime-control power of empirical desert, but they provide no support for their own principle of individual prevention. Moreover, that principle, which focuses on an offender’s dangerousness rather than his perceived desert, is erroneously described by SBR as "a sort of limiting retributivism." In reality, what SBR propose is a system based on dangerousness, where detention decisions are made at the back-end by experts. Such an approach promotes the worst of the failed policies of the 1960s, and conflicts with the modern trend of encouraging more community involvement in criminal punishment, not less.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 65

Keywords: criminal law, law & society, psychology, views of justice, sentencing and corrections, punishment, blame, lay intuitions of justice, empirical desert, moral credibility, individual prevention, future dangerousness, preventative detention, community involvement in criminal punishment

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 21, 2013 ; Last revised: April 15, 2014

Suggested Citation

Robinson, Paul H. and Barton, Joshua Samuel and Lister, Matthew J., Empirical Desert, Individual Prevention, and Limiting Retributivism: A Reply (Spring 2014). New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 17, Pg. 312, Spring 2014.; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 13-19. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2312655 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2312655

Contact Information

Paul H. Robinson (Contact Author)
University of Pennsylvania Law School ( email )
3501 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States
Joshua Samuel Barton
Sullivan & Cromwell - New York Headquarters ( email )
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2400
United States
Matthew J. Lister
University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department ( email )
3730 Walnut Street
Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6365
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 797
Downloads: 156
Download Rank: 113,943

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.484 seconds