Good consequences

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68378122%3A_____%2F11%3A00360865" target="_blank" >RIV/68378122:_____/11:00360865 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Good consequences

Original language description

This essay considers the problem of justification of punishment. Philosophers of criminal law developed a whole range of competing theories, which answer this question by their own manner. Of course, each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses. Traditionally, the most pronounced among these theories are two, i.e. retributivism and consequentialism. If put very simply, the consequentialist justifications (e.g. Bentham, Sidgwick) of punishment lie in the fact that punishment is only justifiable on the basis of its good consequences, while retributivist theories (e.g. Kant, Hegel) present within their mainstream an opinion that punishment is justified only when a punished person deserves it. The author argues that we need a combined theory. Normative jurisprudence should not be satisfied with simple utilitarianism (maximization of social utility), but it should tie it to deontological constraints limitations, specifically to the requirement to respect an autonomy of an individ

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_x - Unclassified - Peer-reviewed scientific article (Jimp, Jsc and Jost)

CEP classification

AG - Legal sciences

OECD FORD branch

—

Project

—

Continuities

Z - Vyzkumny zamer (s odkazem do CEZ)

Publication year

2011

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Právník

ISSN

0231-6625

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

150/1

Issue of the periodical within the volume

6

Country of publishing house

CZ - CZECH REPUBLIC

Number of pages

28

Pages from-to

3-30

UT code for WoS article

—

EID of the result in the Scopus database

—