Kant on Punishment

Shell, Susan Meld

doi:10.1017/s136941540000008x

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using vignettes with thinkaloud protocols with four additional education deans, we (Wepner, D'Onofrio, Willis, & Wilhite, 2002) found support for the two themes yet differences in the deans' recommendations of specific strategies and actions. Based on these findings, and following Shell (1997), we proposed a modification to the moral dimension by substituting the moral justifications of virtue, duty, consequences, justice, and well-being for the two original themes.…”

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Leadership Dimensions of Education Deans

Wepner

D'Onofrio

Wilhite

2008

Journal of Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Education deans in the United States describe their approach to solving leadership problems that were cast as organizational dilemmas. The deans who participated in the study had been education deans for at least 6 to 7 years, indicating that they had avoided the revolving door syndrome of 4.5 years in a single appointment. Deans described their problem solving in interviews that asked for a response to vignettes. The answers were analyzed using a conceptual model that was developed over a period of 7 years. The framework consisted of four dimensions of leadership: intellectual, emotional, social, and moral. All 14 deans used all four dimensions in responding to the vignettes yet relied on the intellectual dimension as the basis for employing the other three dimensions. Within each dimension, education deans used specific themes (e.g., defining problems) more frequently than other themes. Implications for the professional development of deans are explored.

show abstract

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Leadership Dimensions of Education Deans

Wepner

D'Onofrio

Wilhite

2008

Journal of Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For Kant citizens are the component parts of the state whose mutual interaction should be guided and coordinated by laws of right to bring about the harmonious whole that is the civil realm. 37 Reciprocity is an underpinning ideal so that citizens stand in relations of civil equality whereby one citizen does 'not recogniz[e] among the people any superior with the moral capacity to bind him as a matter of right in a way that he could not 33 Amongst those who defy this trend are Ellington (1985); Goldmann (1971); Moggach (2000); Morrison (1995); Morrison (1998);Saner (1973); Shell (1996) and Shell (1997); while reciprocity is discussed to some extent in the punishment literature. 34 These authorities being the sovereign authority embodied in the form of the legislator; the executive authority in the guise of the ruler; and finally there exists within the state judicial authority represented by the judge.…”

Section: Crim Law and Philosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kant (1991, 6:331). Punishment should never follow from anything other than retributivist motives, but this does not rule out its having other possible outcomes as well.27 Shell (1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Kantian Retributivism to Construct a Justification of Punishment

Johnson

2008

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard view of Kant's retributivism, as well as its more recent reworking in the 'limited' or 'partial' retributivist reading are, it is argued here, inadequate accounts of Kant on punishment. In the case of the former, the view is too limited and superficial, and in the latter it is simply inaccurate as an interpretation of Kant. Instead, this paper argues that a more sophisticated and accurate rendering of Kant on punishment can be obtained by looking to his construction of the concept of justice. In so doing, not only is a superior account of Kant furnished, but also one up to the task of resolving the vexed issue of justifying legal punishment.

show abstract

“…Honour has received little attention from Kant scholars. Susan Shell and David Sussman are the exceptions (Shell 1997;Sussman 2008); Tom Sorell makes some brief remarks about honour (1988). I want to thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to Sussman's paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kant's Justification of the Death Penalty Reconsidered

Yost

2010

Kantian rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is hard to know what to think about Kant's ‘passionate sermons’ on capital punishment. Kant clearly feels that it is one of the most important punishments in the state's arsenal. But his vehement insistence on the necessity of execution strikes many readers as philosophically suspect. Critics argue that Kant's embrace of the death penalty is incompatible with, or at least not required by, the fundamental tenets of his moral and legal philosophy (Schwarzschild 1985; Merle 2000; Potter 2002; Hill 2003). These arguments typically employ one of two strategies. The first is to deny that execution is required by retribution in even a prima facie sense; arguments along this line typically question the coherence of Kant's doctrine of the ius talionis (Sarver 1997). The second is to show that there are inviolable moral principles that render the death penalty illegitimate; this criticism typically appeals to the value of human dignity or the right to life (Radin 1980; Pugsley 1981; Schwarzschild 1985; Merle 2000; Potter 2002). There is a third strategy that could be used to criticize Kant, although it is not aimed at him specifcally. This strategy invokes legal principles of fairness or due process. It asserts that, regardless of capital punishment's moral appropriateness or legitimacy, capital punishment is unjust due to the fallibility of legal actors and institutions (Nathanson 2001). Someone adopting the third strategy might claim that, while Kant's justifcation may be acceptable in principle, it fails to justify the death penalty in the world we live in.

show abstract

Kant on Punishment

Cited by 10 publications

References 4 publications

The Leadership Dimensions of Education Deans

The Leadership Dimensions of Education Deans

Revisiting Kantian Retributivism to Construct a Justification of Punishment

Kant's Justification of the Death Penalty Reconsidered

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About