The Goals of Criminal Punishment: A Rawlsian Theory (Ultimately Grounded in Multiple Views Concerned with Human Dignity)
![handle is hein.journals/syrlr41 and id is 753 raw text is: THE GOALS OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT: A
RAWLSIAN THEORY (ULTIMATELY
GROUNDED IN MULTIPLE VIEWS
CONCERNED WITH HUMAN DIGNITY)
Samuel J.M. Donnellyt
The problem to be addressed in this Article is the justification of
criminal punishment. Normally criminal punishment is justified by
explaining that it serves such goals as retribution for the crime com-
mitted, deterrence of future crime, rehabilitation of the criminal, or
incapacitation to keep him from committing further crime.1 H.L.A.
Hart has described deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation as
crime reduction goals.2 Rehabilitation, for example, is justified not
because it benefits the criminal but because it reduces future crime.3
Retribution may be a euphemism for revenge or it may, as in Kantian
philosophy, relate punishment to respect for the human dignity of the
convicted criminal.4
Kant argued that a criminal should not be punished for his own
good or the good of society, but simply because he deserved punish-
ment. A rational person, according to Kant, should suffer the logical
consequences of his actions. To refuse to impose those consequences
t Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; member of the New York
and New Jersey Bars. The author wishes to thank Mr. Paul J. Campo, Mr. Jerry Leo-
nard, and Mr. Dennis Bischof for their invaluable assistance in preparing footnotes for
this Article, as well as their other research assistance throughout the writing of this piece.
1. H. PACKER, THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION 35-61, 134-45, 252-53,
296-301 (1968).
2. H.L.A. HART, PUNISHMENT AND RESPONSIBILrTY 26-27 (1968) [hereinafter
PUNISHMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY].
3. Id.
4. Kant's retributivist theory of criminal punishment contends that society is mor-
ally obligated to punish citizens who commit crime. Criminals should be treated as ends
in themselves and punished because they deserve it, not as a means to the fulfillment of
societal goals. I. KANT, THE METAPHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF JUSTICE 100 (J. Ladd trans.
1965) [hereinafter THE METAPHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF JUSTICE]. These central issues of
Kantian philosophy are discussed more elaborately infra note 120 and accompanying
text. For related discussions of punishment based upon desert, see M. SHERMAN & G.
HAWKINS, infra note 9, at 105-13. And for an explicit rejection of the punishment based
purely upon desert doctrine, compare the above Kantian view with the MODEL PENAL
CODE AND COMMENTARIES § 7.01 (Am. Law Inst. 1985).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/syrlr41&div=30&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Goals of Criminal Punishment: A Rawlsian Theory (Ultimately Grounded in Multiple Views Concerned with Human Dignity)
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most