Expanding The Scope of The Epistemic Argument to Cover Nonpunitive Incapacitation

A growing number of theorists have launched an epistemic challenge against retributive punishment. This challenge involves the core claim that it is wrong (intentionally) to inflict serious harm on someone unless the moral argument for doing so has been established to a high standard of credibility....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diametros 2024-03, Vol.21 (79), p.132-145
1. Verfasser: Shaw, Elizabeth
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 145
container_issue 79
container_start_page 132
container_title Diametros
container_volume 21
creator Shaw, Elizabeth
description A growing number of theorists have launched an epistemic challenge against retributive punishment. This challenge involves the core claim that it is wrong (intentionally) to inflict serious harm on someone unless the moral argument for doing so has been established to a high standard of credibility. Proponents of this challenge typically argue that retributivism fails to meet the required epistemic standard, because retributivism relies on a contentious conception of free will, about whose existence we cannot be sufficiently certain. However, the scope of the epistemic challenge should not be limited to doubts about free will or retributivism. In this article, I argue that the epistemic challenge should be expanded beyond the original focus on justifications of punishment. By “expanding the epistemic challenge” I mean demanding that other purported justifications for serious (intentional) harm be held to a high standard of credibility. To provide a focus for the argument, I will concentrate on the “Public Health Quarantine Model” defended by Gregg Caruso, but my arguments have wider implications beyond this model. A growing number of “abolitionist” theorists believe that punishment is wrong in principle. If retributive punishment, or punishment in general, were abandoned, we would need to ask, “how else should we respond to crime?”. My arguments suggest that all such abolitionists will have to face the same epistemic standard as penal theorists if they wish to replace punishment with the intentional imposition of non-punitive severe coercive measures.
doi_str_mv 10.33392/diam.1931
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ceeol_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_33392_diam_1931</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ceeol_id>1241081</ceeol_id><sourcerecordid>1241081</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ad04a04e96eeb38a6e8cc60ec2e08c549c3ec828deb498ecc33a5b5b6f80cdc63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkFFLwzAUhYMoOKcvvgsB34TOpEmz9HGMqYOhiPO5pLe3M2NNapoO_fduc6BP91z4OAc-Qq45Gwkh8vS-sqYZ8VzwEzLgYyGSLFPq9F8-Jxddt2ZMpUyyAXmdfbXGVdat6PID6Rv4FqmvD8-stV3ExgKdhFXfoIs0ejr1Wwz02bu2dzbaLdK5A9MasNFE690lOavNpsOr4x2S94fZcvqULF4e59PJIoF0rGJiKiYNk5grxFJoo1ADKIaQItOQyRwEgk51haXMNQIIYbIyK1WtGVSgxJDc_va2wX_22MVi7fvgdpOFYHIspJKZ3lF3vxQE33UB66INtjHhu-CsOCgr9sqKvbIdfHOEEf3mr4-nkjPNxQ-za2mP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3047346458</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Expanding The Scope of The Epistemic Argument to Cover Nonpunitive Incapacitation</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Shaw, Elizabeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><description>A growing number of theorists have launched an epistemic challenge against retributive punishment. This challenge involves the core claim that it is wrong (intentionally) to inflict serious harm on someone unless the moral argument for doing so has been established to a high standard of credibility. Proponents of this challenge typically argue that retributivism fails to meet the required epistemic standard, because retributivism relies on a contentious conception of free will, about whose existence we cannot be sufficiently certain. However, the scope of the epistemic challenge should not be limited to doubts about free will or retributivism. In this article, I argue that the epistemic challenge should be expanded beyond the original focus on justifications of punishment. By “expanding the epistemic challenge” I mean demanding that other purported justifications for serious (intentional) harm be held to a high standard of credibility. To provide a focus for the argument, I will concentrate on the “Public Health Quarantine Model” defended by Gregg Caruso, but my arguments have wider implications beyond this model. A growing number of “abolitionist” theorists believe that punishment is wrong in principle. If retributive punishment, or punishment in general, were abandoned, we would need to ask, “how else should we respond to crime?”. My arguments suggest that all such abolitionists will have to face the same epistemic standard as penal theorists if they wish to replace punishment with the intentional imposition of non-punitive severe coercive measures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1733-5566</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1733-5566</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.33392/diam.1931</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Krakow: Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego</publisher><subject>Abolitionists ; Criminal Law ; Epistemology ; Free will ; Penology</subject><ispartof>Diametros, 2024-03, Vol.21 (79), p.132-145</ispartof><rights>2024. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ad04a04e96eeb38a6e8cc60ec2e08c549c3ec828deb498ecc33a5b5b6f80cdc63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttps://www.ceeol.com//api/image/getissuecoverimage?id=picture_2024_82074.png</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><title>Expanding The Scope of The Epistemic Argument to Cover Nonpunitive Incapacitation</title><title>Diametros</title><addtitle>Diametros</addtitle><description>A growing number of theorists have launched an epistemic challenge against retributive punishment. This challenge involves the core claim that it is wrong (intentionally) to inflict serious harm on someone unless the moral argument for doing so has been established to a high standard of credibility. Proponents of this challenge typically argue that retributivism fails to meet the required epistemic standard, because retributivism relies on a contentious conception of free will, about whose existence we cannot be sufficiently certain. However, the scope of the epistemic challenge should not be limited to doubts about free will or retributivism. In this article, I argue that the epistemic challenge should be expanded beyond the original focus on justifications of punishment. By “expanding the epistemic challenge” I mean demanding that other purported justifications for serious (intentional) harm be held to a high standard of credibility. To provide a focus for the argument, I will concentrate on the “Public Health Quarantine Model” defended by Gregg Caruso, but my arguments have wider implications beyond this model. A growing number of “abolitionist” theorists believe that punishment is wrong in principle. If retributive punishment, or punishment in general, were abandoned, we would need to ask, “how else should we respond to crime?”. My arguments suggest that all such abolitionists will have to face the same epistemic standard as penal theorists if they wish to replace punishment with the intentional imposition of non-punitive severe coercive measures.</description><subject>Abolitionists</subject><subject>Criminal Law</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Free will</subject><subject>Penology</subject><issn>1733-5566</issn><issn>1733-5566</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>REL</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkFFLwzAUhYMoOKcvvgsB34TOpEmz9HGMqYOhiPO5pLe3M2NNapoO_fduc6BP91z4OAc-Qq45Gwkh8vS-sqYZ8VzwEzLgYyGSLFPq9F8-Jxddt2ZMpUyyAXmdfbXGVdat6PID6Rv4FqmvD8-stV3ExgKdhFXfoIs0ejr1Wwz02bu2dzbaLdK5A9MasNFE690lOavNpsOr4x2S94fZcvqULF4e59PJIoF0rGJiKiYNk5grxFJoo1ADKIaQItOQyRwEgk51haXMNQIIYbIyK1WtGVSgxJDc_va2wX_22MVi7fvgdpOFYHIspJKZ3lF3vxQE33UB66INtjHhu-CsOCgr9sqKvbIdfHOEEf3mr4-nkjPNxQ-za2mP</recordid><startdate>20240301</startdate><enddate>20240301</enddate><creator>Shaw, Elizabeth</creator><general>Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego</general><general>Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University</general><general>Jagiellonian University, Institute of Philosophy</general><scope>AE2</scope><scope>BIXPP</scope><scope>REL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240301</creationdate><title>Expanding The Scope of The Epistemic Argument to Cover Nonpunitive Incapacitation</title><author>Shaw, Elizabeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ad04a04e96eeb38a6e8cc60ec2e08c549c3ec828deb498ecc33a5b5b6f80cdc63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Abolitionists</topic><topic>Criminal Law</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Free will</topic><topic>Penology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><collection>Central and Eastern European Online Library (C.E.E.O.L.) (DFG Nationallizenzen)</collection><collection>CEEOL: Open Access</collection><collection>Central and Eastern European Online Library</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Diametros</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shaw, Elizabeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Expanding The Scope of The Epistemic Argument to Cover Nonpunitive Incapacitation</atitle><jtitle>Diametros</jtitle><addtitle>Diametros</addtitle><date>2024-03-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>79</issue><spage>132</spage><epage>145</epage><pages>132-145</pages><issn>1733-5566</issn><eissn>1733-5566</eissn><abstract>A growing number of theorists have launched an epistemic challenge against retributive punishment. This challenge involves the core claim that it is wrong (intentionally) to inflict serious harm on someone unless the moral argument for doing so has been established to a high standard of credibility. Proponents of this challenge typically argue that retributivism fails to meet the required epistemic standard, because retributivism relies on a contentious conception of free will, about whose existence we cannot be sufficiently certain. However, the scope of the epistemic challenge should not be limited to doubts about free will or retributivism. In this article, I argue that the epistemic challenge should be expanded beyond the original focus on justifications of punishment. By “expanding the epistemic challenge” I mean demanding that other purported justifications for serious (intentional) harm be held to a high standard of credibility. To provide a focus for the argument, I will concentrate on the “Public Health Quarantine Model” defended by Gregg Caruso, but my arguments have wider implications beyond this model. A growing number of “abolitionist” theorists believe that punishment is wrong in principle. If retributive punishment, or punishment in general, were abandoned, we would need to ask, “how else should we respond to crime?”. My arguments suggest that all such abolitionists will have to face the same epistemic standard as penal theorists if they wish to replace punishment with the intentional imposition of non-punitive severe coercive measures.</abstract><cop>Krakow</cop><pub>Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego</pub><doi>10.33392/diam.1931</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1733-5566
ispartof Diametros, 2024-03, Vol.21 (79), p.132-145
issn 1733-5566
1733-5566
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_33392_diam_1931
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Abolitionists
Criminal Law
Epistemology
Free will
Penology
title Expanding The Scope of The Epistemic Argument to Cover Nonpunitive Incapacitation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T13%3A57%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ceeol_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Expanding%20The%20Scope%20of%20The%20Epistemic%20Argument%20to%20Cover%20Nonpunitive%20Incapacitation&rft.jtitle=Diametros&rft.au=Shaw,%20Elizabeth&rft.date=2024-03-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=79&rft.spage=132&rft.epage=145&rft.pages=132-145&rft.issn=1733-5566&rft.eissn=1733-5566&rft_id=info:doi/10.33392/diam.1931&rft_dat=%3Cceeol_cross%3E1241081%3C/ceeol_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3047346458&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ceeol_id=1241081&rfr_iscdi=true