« Supreme Court grants cert on four new criminal cases and a dozen others | Main | Nebraska Supreme Court decides "undocumented status" can be proper, but not conclusive, sentencing factor when deciding on probation sentence »
January 14, 2017
"Punishment and Moral Risk"
The title of this post is the title of this intriguing new paper authored by Adam Kolber now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
For every interesting moral question, we should have at least some doubt that we know the right answer. Legal theorists ignore this moral uncertainty at their peril. To take one important example, for retributivists to inflict punishment, they must believe not only that a defendant is guilty but that all other prerequisites for deserved punishment are satisfied as well. They must believe offenders have free will, even though philosophers have debated the topic for centuries. They must believe offenders can be punished proportionally, even though no one has convincingly determined how to assess proportionality. And they must believe it appropriate to make offenders suffer as a response to the suffering they caused, even though some find this view barbaric.
These retributivist commitments, along with several others, are clearly controversial. One would be hard-pressed to believe a single one — let alone the conjunction — with the 95% or 99% confidence frequently attributed to the beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard used to assess guilt. Reasonable retributivists, I argue, face too much uncertainty to justify punishment under the standard of proof they would likely set for themselves. Consequentialists, by contrast, are less vulnerable to this challenge. They can accept greater risk when punishing because they face countervailing risk by failing to adequately punish.
More generally, I argue that we hold not just beliefs but “portfolios of beliefs” that can exacerbate or hedge moral risks. These portfolios sometimes do a better job of explaining our moral and legal views than existing theories, and I show how “epistemic hybrid” theories that combine retributivism and consequentialism can avoid the inconsistencies facing current hybrid theories. We are not necessarily retributivists or consequentialists but, say, 60%-retributivists or 90%-consequentialists. Portfolios of beliefs can also help us understand other areas of law and morality, such as the perplexities of threshold deontology and the puzzles of tort law. Indeed, portfolios of beliefs may not only explain our beliefs but also offer normatively appealing alternatives to our existing theories that fail to take moral risk into account.
January 14, 2017 at 05:25 PM | Permalink
The FBI Index of felonies contains 8 crimes. These are committed millions of times. The real number of crimes may be in the hundreds of millions a year. The real murder number may not be 15000, but much higher. There are 100,000 unresolved missing persons reports a year. These crimes are herded into black neighborhoods. The residents there do not have the political power to object.
The criminal law is in failure if safety is its aim. It is successful if rent seeking and lawyer employment is its aim. White people do not come down hard on the lawyer because they are profiting from crime. The value of their homes in the suburbs are artificially elevated by the high crime rate in the central cities. The latter are far more desirable places to live if one works in town, were they not like combat zones.
The article is nit picking over worthless lawyer procedure. When the profession was threatened by the public, it adopted an effective incapacitation purpose in the Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. They dropped crime 40% across the board, likely in the uncounted categories as well. Naturally, the resulting lawyer unemployment resulted in their being made discretionary. We are eating the fruit of judge discretion in a 25% increase in murders in 20 cities.
Posted by: David Behar | Jan 15, 2017 7:16:51 AM
Is that you, SC?
Posted by: MarK M. | Jan 16, 2017 4:15:09 AM