Kurzus nemzetközi vendég- és részidős hallgatóknak

Kar

Bölcsészettudományi Kar

Szervezet

BTK Filozófia Intézet

Kód

BMI-FILD-342.59

Cím

Bűnözés és törvényes büntetés

Tervezett félév

Őszi

Meghirdetve

2024/25/1

ECTS

4

Nyelv

en

Leírás

For the latest version of the syllabus, please visit the Philosophy course catalogue: http://lps.elte.hu/courselist/ The central question which we will examine on the course is whether there is a plausible justification for the social practice of punishment as a response to criminal acts in a society? Three groups of theories answer positively to this question: retributivist, consequentialist and so-called “mixed theories”. Some retributivists defend the view that punishment is justified because criminal offenders deserve to suffer. Some consequentialists, on the other side, claim that punishment can only be justified on forward-looking reasons, namely with the intention to deter future offenders. Other theorists propose more complex view according to which punishment is justified because it contains a reprobative element, namely it is not simply an infliction of harm on an offender, but it also communicates a censure, or social disapproval of criminal behavior. During the course we will examine in detail the variety of each of these theoretical camps and evaluate their justifications. Aside from these three positive answers to the central question of this course, “philosophical abolitionists” answer this question negatively. There are various reasons for taking such a stand. Some give a negative answer because they believe that no agent satisfies the conditions for moral responsibility necessary for punishment. In the last part of the course, we will examine what follows from taking such a position by discussing Caruso’s “quarantine model”. On the last class we will also survey the views of contemporary political abolitionists, mainly in the American context. •Week 1 (September 11): Course introduction, no reading assignment •Week 2 (September 18): Retributivism: desert-based theories Mandatory reading: - Kershnar, S. (2000), ‘‘A Defense of Retributivism,’’ International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 14, No. 1: 97–117. Supplementary reading: - Moore, M. S. (1993), ‘‘Justifying Retributivism.’’ Israel Law Review, Vol. 27: 15–49. • Week 3 (September 25): Retributivism: fair-play based theories Mandatory reading: - Dagger R. (1993), “Playing Fair with Punishment,” Ethics 103 (3): 473–488 Supplementary reading: - Dagger, R. (1991), ‘‘Restitution: Pure or Punitive?,’’ Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 2. 29–39. • Week 4 (October 02): Other forms of retributivist justification of punishment Mandatory reading: - Nino, C. S (1983), ‘‘A Consensual Theory of Punishment,’’ In Punishment edited by Simmons et al., 94–111. Supplementary reading: - Boonin, D. (2008) The Problem of Punishment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Ch.3. • Week 5 (October 09): Consequentialism: act-utilitarian theories Mandatory reading: - Bentham, J. (1789), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (excerpts shared) Supplementary reading: - Golash, D. (2006), The Case Against Punishment: Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law, NYU Press. Ch.2 • Week 6 (October 16): Consequentialism: non-utilitarian theories Mandatory reading: - Cragg, W. (1992), The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of RestorativeJustice. Routledge. Ch 6 and 7 Supplementary reading: - Brunk, C. G. (1996), ‘‘Restorative Justice and Punishment.’’ Dialogue, Vol. 35, 593–8. •Week 7 (October 23): National Holiday •Week 8 (October 30): Fall Holiday •Week 9 (November 06): Punishment as communicating social disapproval Mandatory reading: - Duff R.A. (1999), ‘‘Punishment, Communication, and Community,’’ in Punishment and Political Theory, edited by M. Matravers, Bloomsbury Academic, 48–69. Supplementary reading: - Duff R.A. (2001), Punishment, Communication and Community, Oxford University Press. • Week 10 (November 13): Punishment as moral education Mandatory reading: - Hampton J. (1984), “The Moral Education Theory of Punishment,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 (3): 208–238. Supplementary reading: - Hampton J. (1998), ‘‘Punishment, Feminism, and Political Identity: A Case Study in the Expressive Meaning of the Law.’’ Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 11, No. 1: 23–45. • Week 11 (November 20): Abolitionism: a quarantine model IMandatory reading: - Caruso G. D. (2021), Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press, Ch.6. Supplementary reading: - Pereboom, D. (2013), “Free will skepticism and criminal punishment,” in The Future of Punishment, edited by T. Nadelhoffer, Oxford University Press, 49–78. • Week 12 (November 27): Abolitionism: a quarantine model II Mandatory reading: - Caruso G. D. (2021), Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press, Ch.7 Supplementary reading: - Caruso G.D. (2021), “Retributivism, free will skepticism and the public health-quarantine model: replies to Corrado, Kennedy, Sifferd, Walen,Pereboom and Shaw,” Journal of Legal Philosophy, Vol. 46 No. 2: 161–215. • Week 13 (December 04): Abolitionism in context Mandatory reading: - Bell M. (2021), “Abolition: A New Paradigm for Reform,” Law & Social Inquiry 46 (1): 32–68. Supplementary reading: - McLeod, A. M. (2015), “Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice,” University of California Los Angeles Law Review 62: 1156–1239. • Week 14 (December 11): Recap and final discussion No reading assignment

Tantárgy tartalma

For the latest version of the syllabus, please visit the Philosophy course catalogue: http://lps.elte.hu/courselist/ Course description: The central question which we will examine on the course is whether there is a plausible justification for the social practice of punishment as a response to criminal acts in a society? Three groups of theories answer positively to this question: retributivist, consequentialist and socalled “mixed theories”. Some retributivists defend the view that punishment is justified because criminal offenders deserve to suffer. Some consequentialists, on the other side, claim that punishment can only be justified on forward-looking reasons, namely with the intention to deter future offenders. Other theorists propose more complex view according to which punishment is justified because it contains a reprobative element, namely it is not simply an infliction of harm on an offender, but it also communicates a censure, or social disapproval of criminal behavior. During the course we will examine in detail the variety of each of these theoretical camps and evaluate their justifications. Aside from these three positive answers to the central question of this course, “philosophical abolitionists” answer this question negatively. There are various reasons for taking such a stand. Some give a negative answer because they believe that no agent satisfies the conditions for moral responsibility necessary for punishment. In the last part of the course, we will examine what follows from taking such a position by discussing Caruso’s “quarantine model”. On the last class we will also survey the views of contemporary political abolitionists, mainly in the American context. Overview of the weekly program of the course: Week 1 (September 11): Course introduction: what is personal autonomy? Week 2 (September 18): Retributivism: desert based Week 3 (September 25): Retributivism: fair-play based Week 4 (October 02): Other forms of retributivist justification of punishment Week 5 (October 09): Consequentialism: act-utilitarian theories Week 6 (October 16): Consequentialism: non-utilitarian theories Week 7 (October 23): National holiday Week 8 (October 30): Fall holiday Week 9 (November 06): Punishment as communicating social disapproval Week 10 (November 13): Punishment as moral education Week 11 (November 20): Abolitionism: a quarantine model I Week 12 (November 27): Abolitionism: a quarantine model II Week 13 (December 04): Abolitionism in context Week 14 (December 11): Recap and discussion

Számonkérés és értékelés

Course requirements: •Attendance: students are required to attend minimum 11 classes (85%) in order to get a grade. • Participation in seminar discussions Students are expected to have read the compulsory readings and participate in the class discussions. For those students who have no experience in participating in philosophical conversation/discussions, I recommend you to consult this brief overview of the modes of participation on a philosophy class by "Olivia Bailey: Bailey But how do I participate?"" 2021 edition (weebly.com). The contribution to the class discussions will be marked continuously during the course and it will constitute 10% of the grade. • Presentation(s) of mandatory reading(s) Depending on the course size students are required to make one or two individual and/or group presentations of a mandatory reading. The presentation should last no more than 20 minutes and should be focused on exposing the main arguments of the assigned reading in a way that will make it easier for the class to discuss and evaluate them. The presentation should be (1) comprehensive and present all relevant arguments from the reading; the arguments should be presented (2) accurately and (3) clearly; and should include a (4) critical stand or evaluation of the arguments by the presenter(s). The presentation(s) will be graded according to these four criteria and will constitute 20% of the grade. • Mid-term position paper (max. 1000 words) During the course students are required to write one position paper of around 1000 words. The position paper is due on October 16, 2024, at midnight. The position paper should be written in MS Word format and should be sent to me as an attachment via email. Please name your document, in the following way: “Surname and name_Position Paper_Course name”. Papers which do not meet the above format requirements (which are submitted as cloud links, pdfs, ppts, jpgs) or are improperly named, will be penalized with one grade. For papers sent after the deadline the late submission policy applies. The position paper comprises 30% of the grade. More details on how to write a position paper for my course will follow in class in due time. • Final paper (2500-3000 words) The final paper is written on a topic of choice by the student which has been discussed or is relevant for the course and has been approved by me upon consultation (in person or by mail). The final paper is due on December 11, 2024, at midnight. The final paper constitutes 40% of your grade. More details on how to write your final paper for my course will follow in class in due time. Grade composition: Participation in class discussions 10% Presentation(s) of mandatory reading(s) 20% Mid-term position paper -30% Final paper 40% Grading Scale: 0-49 points: fail (1) 50-54 points: sufficient/pass (2) 55-69 points: satisfactory (3) 70-84 points: good (4) 85-100 points: excellent (5) Late submission policy: The position and the final paper are due on the dates indicated above. If papers are up to one day late, they will be penalized a whole grade. Thereafter, one more grade for each additional day they are late. Accommodations: In case you have a documented disability, which affects your performance on the course, please let me know through mail or after the classes, so that we can discuss on time the appropriate provisions to accommodate your needs. Policy on academic honesty: All position and final papers will be checked for plagiarism. Plagiarism on any of the papers will result in automatic failure of the course irrespective of the rest of your performance. Be careful how you present the works of others: use appropriate citations and full bibliographic references to the literature you are using! You are free to use any reference style but please be consistent!

Kurzus szakjai