Skip to main content
Text added for clarification.
Source Link
Geoffrey Thomas
  • 36.1k
  • 4
  • 46
  • 148

Punishment is logically (1) a penalty (fine, imprisonment, community service, &c.) (2) of an offender (3) for an offence, a crime committed. There is also (4) a requirement that the penalty be imposed by human agency - some natural diaster befalling the offender does not count as punishment - and (5) that the penalty be imposed by an authority of some kind, personal or institutional.

That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference: punishment occurs when conditions (1) - (5) are met. Punishment is for an offence, a crime, regardless of whether the crime can be committed again.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

ReformReformation (successful or otherwise) doesof the offender does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment or an accompaniment to punishment. Reform is punishment plus.

Reference

A. Flew, 'The Justification of Punishment', A Philosophy of Punishment, ed. H.B. Acton, London: Macmillan, 1969: 83-104.

Punishment is logically (1) a penalty (fine, imprisonment, community service, &c.) (2) of an offender (3) for an offence, a crime committed. There is also (4) a requirement that the penalty be imposed by human agency - some natural diaster befalling the offender does not count as punishment - and (5) that the penalty be imposed by an authority of some kind, personal or institutional.

That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference: punishment occurs when conditions (1) - (5) are met. Punishment is for an offence, a crime, regardless of whether the crime can be committed again.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

Reform (successful or otherwise) does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment or an accompaniment to punishment. Reform is punishment plus.

Punishment is logically (1) a penalty (fine, imprisonment, community service, &c.) (2) of an offender (3) for an offence, a crime committed. There is also (4) a requirement that the penalty be imposed by human agency - some natural diaster befalling the offender does not count as punishment - and (5) that the penalty be imposed by an authority of some kind, personal or institutional.

That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference: punishment occurs when conditions (1) - (5) are met. Punishment is for an offence, a crime, regardless of whether the crime can be committed again.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

Reformation (successful or otherwise) of the offender does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment or an accompaniment to punishment. Reform is punishment plus.

Reference

A. Flew, 'The Justification of Punishment', A Philosophy of Punishment, ed. H.B. Acton, London: Macmillan, 1969: 83-104.

Text added for clarification.
Source Link
Geoffrey Thomas
  • 36.1k
  • 4
  • 46
  • 148

Punishment is logically (1) a penalty (fine, imprisonment, community service, &c.) (2) of an offender (3) for an offence, a crime committed. There is also (4) a requirement that the penalty be imposed by human agency - some natural diaster befalling the offender does not count as punishment - and (5) that the penalty be imposed by an authority of some kind, personal or institutional. 

That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference: punishment occurs when conditions (1) - (5) are met. OnPunishment is for an offence, a retributive theory of punishmentcrime, punishment is merited simply by virtueregardless of whether the crime's having been done; neither reform nor deterrence is relevantcrime can be committed again.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

Reform (successful or otherwise) does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment or an accompaniment to punishment. Reform is punishment plus.

Punishment is logically for a crime committed. That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference. On a retributive theory of punishment, punishment is merited simply by virtue of the crime's having been done; neither reform nor deterrence is relevant.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

Reform does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment.

Punishment is logically (1) a penalty (fine, imprisonment, community service, &c.) (2) of an offender (3) for an offence, a crime committed. There is also (4) a requirement that the penalty be imposed by human agency - some natural diaster befalling the offender does not count as punishment - and (5) that the penalty be imposed by an authority of some kind, personal or institutional. 

That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference: punishment occurs when conditions (1) - (5) are met. Punishment is for an offence, a crime, regardless of whether the crime can be committed again.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

Reform (successful or otherwise) does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment or an accompaniment to punishment. Reform is punishment plus.

Source Link
Geoffrey Thomas
  • 36.1k
  • 4
  • 46
  • 148

Punishment is logically for a crime committed. That the crime 'physically cannot be committed again', makes no difference. On a retributive theory of punishment, punishment is merited simply by virtue of the crime's having been done; neither reform nor deterrence is relevant.

A reformative theory of punishment would still apply to the case you describe. There is punishment because the crime has been committed and the aim of reform would be to prevent the criminal from engaging in similar crimes or to discourage her/ him from law-breaking in future.

Reform does not replace punishment here; it is the aim of punishment.