Talk:Theory of criminal justice

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

This is mostly an attempt to give some context to the viewpoints on pages dealing with specific types of criminal justice. There seems to be a lot of confusion, especially in retributive justice and restorative justice. I do not claim to be an expert on this topic, but I know enough to see that an article dealing with the theory of criminal justice as distinct from the practice of criminal justice is warranted. CyborgTosser 21:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) eellaa ellaa eehh ehh

Questions

I have found a few things in this article which don't make much sense to me. While they may not be wrong, it seems to me that if the issues were more clearly expressed it would be more useful to the general reader:

"A popular moralistic basis for punishment is that punishment of a wrongdoer is good in and of itself. ... However, there are other moral arguments for punishment. These include the idea that victims have a right to retribution, or that the criminal has a right to punishment." I can see how retribution as an aim is not punishment in and of itself, but saying that the criminal has a right to punishment does not express why punishment is good other than in and of itself.
"Punishment under retroactive laws can not possibly accomplish deterrence." Is this true? If an act is punished by a law which was not in force at the time, there was no deterrant at the time, but I don't see why the effect of the punishment as a deterrent against repeat or other offenders is any less than any other situation.
"However, some theories would argue that the amount of punishment is not important at all. For example, if the purpose of punishment is incapacitation, the fact that a jail sentence is undesirable to the offender is irrelevant." If the purpose of punishment is incapacitation, the desires of the offender are indeed irrelevant. However, it is not made clear what this has to do with the amount of punishment. While it does rule out using the amount required to achieve deterrence as a benchmark, it definitely doesn't say that the amount of punishment is not important at all.

I hope someone can address these points for me. Of course, it would also be good if this article had some references. JPD (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most commonly plagiarized page

Most commonly plagiarized page in my Ethics class. I teach a class in Ethics and Critical Thinking. My students were assigned a term paper in which they were to read Alan Young's Justice Defiled and critically analyze his writing. However, 8 out of 34 students choose to plagiarize and quoted this article.

Note to potential plagiarizing students: It was easily recognizable and simple to detect the source. --67.193.50.133 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]