Moral Concerns About Responsibility Denial and the Quarantine of Violent Criminals

Lemos, John

doi:10.1007/s10982-016-9266-0

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pereboom’s model has been much praised for his humanitarian take and has quickly become one of the cornerstones of contemporary debates in criminal justice (Tadros, 2011 ). Pereboom’s model, however, has also received substantial criticism (Corrado, 2016 ; Lemos, 2016 , 2019 ).…”

Section: Incapacitating the Wrongdoersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Pereboom, we should treat dangerous wrongdoers as carriers of a contagious disease and therefore incapacitate them (that is, put them into quarantine) to prevent the occurrence of vicious crimes in society (Pereboom, 2001 , 2014a , b ). The incapacitation model developed by Pereboom has quickly become one of the cornerstones of contemporary debates on criminal justice (Corrado, 2016; 2019; Lemos, 2016 ; 2019 ; Focquaert, 2019 ). Gregg Caruso, in the attempt to refine Pereboom’s account, recently reframed the incapacitation model originally proposed by Pereboom within the broader justificatory framework of public health ethics (Caruso, 2016 ), developing a non-retributive account of criminal behavior that prioritizes prevention, the proportion of sanctions, and social justice, which he called the public-health quarantine model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dealing with Criminal Behavior: the Inaccuracy of the Quarantine Analogy

Levin

Farina

Lavazza

2021

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pereboom and Caruso propose the quarantine model as an alternative to existing models of criminal justice. They appeal to the established public health practice of quarantining people, which is believed to be effective and morally justified, to explain why -in criminal justice- it is also morally acceptable to detain wrongdoers, without assuming the existence of a retrospective moral responsibility. Wrongdoers in their model are treated as carriers of dangerous diseases and as such should be preventively detained (or rehabilitated) until they no longer pose a threat to society. Our main concern in this paper is that Pereboom and Caruso adopt an idiosyncratic meaning of quarantine regulations. We highlight a set of important disanalogies between their quarantine model and the quarantine regulations currently adopted in public health policies. More specifically, we argue that the similarities that Pereboom and Caruso propose to substantiate their analogy are not consistent—despite what they claim—with the regulations underlying quarantine as an epidemiological process. We also notice that certain quarantine procedures adopted in public health systems are inadequate to deal with criminal behaviors. On these grounds, we conclude that Pereboom and Caruso should not appeal to the quarantine analogy to substantiate their view, unless they address the issues and criticism we raise in this paper.

show abstract

Section: Incapacitating the Wrongdoersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with Criminal Behavior: the Inaccuracy of the Quarantine Analogy

Levin

Farina

Lavazza

2021

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Kant 1790, Part II: 6) While many retributivists disagree with Kant regarding the death penalty, they share his belief that punishment should not exceed what is deserved and that free will and basic desert moral responsibility are needed to maintain respect for persons. John Lemos, for example, has argued, "the human capacity for moral responsibility gives human beings a special dignity and worth that is fundamental to a proper system of morality grounded on the concept of respect for persons" (2013: 78), and theories of punishment that reject basic desert moral responsibility are incapable of protecting this special dignity and worth (see Lemos 2013Lemos , 2016.…”

Section: Proportionality and Human Dignitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Sections 3 and 4, I take up and respond to two general objections to the public health-quarantine model. Since objections by Michael Corrado (2016), John Lemos (2016), Saul Smilanksy (2011, and Victor Tadros (2017) have been addressed in detail elsewhere (see Pereboom 2017a; Pereboom and Caruso 2018), I will here focus on objections that have not yet been addressed. In particular, I will respond to concerns about proportionality, human dignity, and victims' rights.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Public Health-Quarantine Model

Caruso

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most frequently voiced criticisms of free will skepticism is that it is unable to adequately deal with criminal behavior and that the responses it would permit as justified are insufficient for acceptable social policy. This concern is fueled by two factors. The first is that one of the most prominent justifications for punishing criminals, retributivism, is incompatible with free will skepticism. The second concern is that alternative justifications that are not ruled out by the skeptical view per se face significant independent moral objections (Pereboom 2014: 153). Despite these concerns, I maintain that free will skepticism leaves intact other ways to respond to criminal behavior-in particular incapacitation, rehabilitation, and alteration of relevant social conditions-and that these methods are both morally justifiable and sufficient for good social policy. The position I defend is similar to Derk Pereboom 's (2001, 2013, 2014), taking as its starting point his quarantine analogy, but it sets out to develop the quarantine model within a broader justificatory framework drawn from public health ethics. The resulting modelwhich I call the public health-quarantine model (Caruso 2016(Caruso , 2017a)-provides a framework for justifying quarantine and criminal sanctions that is more humane than retributivism and preferable to other non-retributive alternatives. It also provides a broader approach to criminal behavior than Pereboom's quarantine analogy does on its own since it prioritizes prevention and social justice.

show abstract

“…For objections to the public health-quarantine model, seeSmilansky (2011Smilansky ( , 2017,Corrado (2016Corrado ( , 2018Corrado ( , 2019Corrado ( , 2021,Lemos (2016Lemos ( , 2018,Tadros (2017),Morse (2018),Kennedy (2021),Sifferd (2021),Walen (2021),Zaibert (2021),Donelson (forthcoming), and McCormick (forthcoming). For our replies to these objections, seePereboom and Caruso (2018),Pereboom (2001Pereboom ( , 2013Pereboom ( , 2014aPereboom ( , 2016Pereboom ( , 2020Pereboom ( , 2021b,Caruso (2021bCaruso ( , 2021cCaruso ( , 2021d.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Responsibility Reconsidered

Caruso

Pereboom²

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Element examines the concept of moral responsibility as it is used in contemporary philosophical debates and explores the justifiability of the moral practices associated with it, including moral praise/blame, retributive punishment, and the reactive attitudes of resentment and indignation. After identifying and discussing several different varieties of responsibility-including causal responsibility, take-charge responsibility, role responsibility, liability responsibility, and the kinds of responsibility associated with attributability, answerability, and accountability-it distinguishes between basic and non-basic desert conceptions of moral responsibility and considers a number of skeptical arguments against each. It then outlines an alternative forward-looking account of moral responsibility grounded in non-desert-invoking desiderata such as protection, reconciliation, and moral formation. It concludes by addressing concerns about the practical implications of skepticism about desert-based moral responsibility and explains how optimistic skeptics can preserve most of what we care about when it comes to our interpersonal relationships, morality, and meaning in life.

show abstract

Moral Concerns About Responsibility Denial and the Quarantine of Violent Criminals

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

Dealing with Criminal Behavior: the Inaccuracy of the Quarantine Analogy

Dealing with Criminal Behavior: the Inaccuracy of the Quarantine Analogy

The Public Health-Quarantine Model

Moral Responsibility Reconsidered

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About