Archiwum Filozofii Prawa
i Filozofii Społecznej Journal of the Polish Section of IVR ISSN 2082-3304 Logo Polskiej Sekcji IVR Polska Sekcja IVR ↗

Research article

Punishing (Non-)Citizens

Autorzy artykułu
  1. Michał Peno

Punishing (Non-)Citizens

Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 2(13)/2016, s. 28-38

DOI 10.36280/afpifs.2016.2.28 ↗
Numer
nr 2(13)/2016
Strony
28-38
Opublikowano
Język tekstu
polski

polski

Abstrakt

If sociologists are to be trusted, reflexivity, focused on itself and devoid of any religious or at least ideological framework, leads to the weakening of control mechanisms. Such changes are accompanied by the polarization of social classes and by the exclusion of the so-called underclass (which certainly includes a vast majority of criminals) from the civil society. In the doctrine of criminal law of “mature modernism”, within the framework of a liberal-democratic state, the civil society, together with the idea of communication, is supposed to constitute a central reference point in the research on criminal liability. Reflexivity brings up new problems. New citizen-oriented criminal law is being shaped, based upon mediation and communication (e.g. restorative justice, Expressive Theory). The civil society does not include the area of politics or political nature of things, where the problem is not the justification of the punishment but the effectiveness of mere spatial isolation. In this sense, it is difficult to talk about the merits of the emancipation of an individual from the limitations imposed by the society. The weakening of any external authority and of political duties owed to the state is replaced by self-control proper to reflexive modernity only in cases where the individuals have adequate intellectual and ethical predispositions. Disappearance of the influence of external rules and values together with the mechanism of exclusion from the civil society results in the weakening of self-control and in selfish care only about one’s own perspective (but also in repressive subordination by the state). Such a state of affairs creates favourable conditions for objectifying criminal liability, abandoning the concept of guilt, and for attempts to provide an ethical justification of penalty – which are concepts taken from the “world of citizens”.

angielski

Abstract

If sociologists are to be trusted, reflexivity, focused on itself and devoid of any religious or at least ideological framework, leads to the weakening of control mechanisms. Such changes are accompanied by the polarization of social classes and by the exclusion of the so-called underclass (which certainly includes a vast majority of criminals) from the civil society. In the doctrine of criminal law of “mature modernism”, within the framework of a liberal-democratic state, the civil society, together with the idea of communication, is supposed to constitute a central reference point in the research on criminal liability. Reflexivity brings up new problems. New citizen-oriented criminal law is being shaped, based upon mediation and communication (e.g. restorative justice, Expressive Theory). The civil society does not include the area of politics or political nature of things, where the problem is not the justification of the punishment but the effectiveness of mere spatial isolation. In this sense, it is difficult to talk about the merits of the emancipation of an individual from the limitations imposed by the society. The weakening of any external authority and of political duties owed to the state is replaced by self-control proper to reflexive modernity only in cases where the individuals have adequate intellectual and ethical predispositions. Disappearance of the influence of external rules and values together with the mechanism of exclusion from the civil society results in the weakening of self-control and in selfish care only about one’s own perspective (but also in repressive subordination by the state). Such a state of affairs creates favourable conditions for objectifying criminal liability, abandoning the concept of guilt, and for attempts to provide an ethical justification of penalty – which are concepts taken from the “world of citizens”.

Keywords

  • reflexivity
  • criminal law
  • philosophy of law
  • restorative justice
  • resentment
  • CLS
Pełny tekst PDF Jak cytować

Bibliografia

71 pozycji bibliograficznych

Literatura

  1. Arrigo, B.A. (1998). Social Justice/Criminal Justice. The Maturation of Critical Theory in Law, Crime, and Deviance. Scarborough: Wadsworth Publishing.

  2. Barnett, R.E. (1977). Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice. Ethics 4, 279-301.

  3. Baszkiewicz, J. (2009). Myśl polityczna wieków średnich. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.

  4. Bauman, Z. (2002). Globalizacja. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

  5. Bauman, Z. (2007). Szanse etyki w zglobalizowanym świecie. Kraków: Znak.

  6. Beccaria, C. (1995). On Crimes and Punishmen ts. In R. Bellamy (Ed.), Beccaria: On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  7. Beck, U. (2009). Ponowne odkrycie polityki: przyczynek do teorii modernizacji refleksywnej. In: U. Beck, A. Giddens, S. Lash (Eds.), Modernizacja refleksyjna. Warszawa: PWN.

  8. Chmieliński, M. (2006). Kanta filozofia kary. Ius et Lex 4, 309-322.

  9. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts As Property. British Journal of Criminology 17(1), 1-15.

  10. Christie, N. (1991). Granice cierpienia. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.

  11. Denton, P.H. (2015). The End of Democracy. Essays in Philosophy 16(1), 70-88.

  12. Duff, R.A. (2001). Punishment, Communication and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  13. Duff, R.A. (2002). Crime, Prohibition and Punishment. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19(2), 97-108.

  14. Duff, R.A. (2006). Karanie obywateli. Ius et Lex 1, 19-43.

  15. Duff, R.A. (2010). A criminal law for citizens. Theoretical Criminology 14(3), 293-309.

  16. Duff, R.A. (2013). Theories of Criminal Law. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/.

  17. Eisenstadt, S.N. (2009). Utopia i nowoczesność. Porównawcza analiza cywilizacji. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.

  18. Feinberg, J. (1970). Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  19. Finkelstein, C. (2011). Punishment as Contract. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 8, 319-340.

  20. Fleurbaey, M. (2008). Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  21. Foucault, M. (2009). Nadzorować i karać. Narodziny więzienia. Warszawa: Aletheia,

  22. Franko Aas, K., Bosworth, M. (2013). The Borders of Punishment: Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  23. Gardocki, L. (2000). Prawo karne. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.

  24. Giddens, A. (2009. Życie w społeczeństwie posttradycyjnym. In: U. Beck, A. Giddens, S. Lash, Modernizacja refleksyjna. Warszawa: PWN.

  25. Gill, N. (2010). Educational Philosophy in the French Enlightenment: From Nature to Second Nature. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

  26. Golash, D. (1994). The Retributive Paradox. Analysis 54 (2), 72-78.

  27. Górniok, O. (2006). Pytania o prawo karne w tzw. erze globalizacji. In W. Czapliński (Ed.), Prawo w XXI wieku. Księga pamiątkowa 50 lecia Instytutu Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akadem ii Nauk. Warszawa: Scholar.

  28. Hampton, J. (2007). Liberalism, retribution and criminality. In J.L. Coleman, A. Buchanan (Eds.), In Harm's Way: Essays in Honor of Joel Feinberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  29. Harcourt, B.E. (2011). The Illusion of Free Markets Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order. Cambridge- London: Harvard University Press.

  30. Hirsch, A. von (1976). Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments. New York: Hill & Wang.

  31. Hirsch, A. von (2006). Uzasadnienie karania i wymiaru kary we współczesnym retrybutywizmie. Ius et lex 1, 46–86.

  32. Hołyst, B. (2013). Zagrożenia ładu społecznego. Warszawa: PWN.

  33. Katz, M.B (Ed.). (1993). The "Underclass" Debate: Views from History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  34. Kaufman, A.P. (1960). The Reform Theory of Punishment. Ethics 1, 49–53.

  35. Kymlicka, W. (1989). Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  36. Królikowski, M. (2006). Sprawiedliwość retrybutywna wobec sprawiedliwości naprawczej. Ius et Lex 1, 107–130.

  37. Lash, S. (2009). Refleksyjność i jej sobowtóry: struktura, estetyka i wspólnota In: U. Beck, A. Giddens, S. Lash, Modernizacja refleksyjna. Warszawa: PWN.

  38. Levanon, L. (2014). Personhood, Equality, and Possible Justification for Criminal Punishment. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 27(2), 439-472.

  39. Lyotard, J.-F. (1998). Postmodernizm dla dzieci. Korespondencja 1982-1985. Warszawa: Aletheia.

  40. Marciano, A. (Ed.). (2011). Constitutional Mythologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

  41. Melosik, Z. (1993). “Epistemologia” postmodernizmu. In: Z. Melosik (Ed.), Nieobecne dyskursy. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika.

  42. Miklaszewska, J., Spryszak, P. (Eds.). (2006). Kant wobec problemów współczesnego świata. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

  43. Morris, H. (1968). Persons and Punishment. The Monist 52(4), 475-501.

  44. Murphy, J.G. (1973). Marxism and Retribution. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2(3), 217-243.

  45. Nelken, D. (2009). Comparative Criminal Justice. Beyond Ethnocentricism and Relativism. European Journal of Criminology 6(4), 291-311.

  46. Nietzsche, F. (2003). Z genealogii moralności. Kraków: Zielona Sowa.

  47. Nozick, R. (1982). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  48. Nozick, R. (2010). Anarchia, państwo i utopia. Warszawa: Alatheia.

  49. Pavlich, G. (1991). Criticism and Criminology: In Search of Legitimacy. Theoretical Criminology 3(1), 29-51.

  50. Peno, M. (2011). Nowoczesna polityka kryminalna w świetle koncepcji polityki tworzenia prawa Jerzego Wróblewskiego. In T. Bekrych, M. Zirk-Sadowski (Eds.), Wpływ teorii Jerzego Wróblewskiego na współczesne prawoznawstwo. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.

  51. Peno, M. (2015). Refleksyjna nauka prawa – uwagi na tle nauki prawa karnego. In: K.J. Kaleta, P. Skuczyński (Eds.), Refleksyjność w prawie. Konteksty i zastosowania. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

  52. Pettit, P. (1997). Republican Theory and Criminal Punishment. Utilitas 9, 59–79.

  53. Philips, M. (1986). The Justification of Punishment and the Justification of Political Authority. Law and Philosophy 5(3), 393–416.

  54. Posner, R.A. (1985). An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law. Columbia Law Review 85(6), 1193-1231.

  55. Primoratz, I. (1995). Punishment as Language. In: J. Feinberg, H. Gross (Eds.), Philosophy of Law. Belmont,

  56. CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

  57. Raphael, D.D. (1989). Problems of Political Philosophy. London: Palgrave.

  58. Ripstein, A. (2004). Equality, Responsibility and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  59. Scheller, M. (2008). Resentyment a moralność. Warszawa: Aletheia.

  60. Shapiro, I. (2003). The Moral Foundations of Politics. New Haven-London: Yale University Press.

  61. Snyder, T. (2015). Czarna ziemia. Holocaust jako ostrzeżenie. Kraków: Znak.

  62. Stewart, H. (2010). The Limits of the Harm Principle. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4(1), 17–35.

  63. Tunick, M. (1992). Punishment. Theory and Practice. Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford: University of California Press.

  64. Utrat Milecki, J. (2006). Podstawy penologii. Teoria kary. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

  65. Wenzel, M., Okimoto T., Feather, N., Platow, M. (2008). Retributive and Restorative Justice. Law and Human Behavior 32, 375–389.

  66. Williams, B. (1976). Morality. Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press.

  67. Wilson, J.Q. (2006). The Theory and Practice of Criminal Punishment. Warszawa.

  68. Wringe, W. (2016). An Expressive Theory of Punishment. London: Palgrave.

  69. Wojciechowski, B. (2006). Dyskursywno-Etyczne Uzasadnienie Kary Kryminalnej. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 3, 137-151.

  70. Zalewski, W. (2006). Sprawiedliwość naprawcza. Początek ewolucji polskiego prawa karnego? Gdańsk: Arche.

  71. Zoll, A. (2004). Wina i kara. Nauka 1, 31-46.

Informacje o publikacji

Autor i afiliacja

Michał Peno

University of Szczecin

Dane wydania

Numer nr 2(13)/2016

Strony
28-38
Opublikowano
DostępOpen LicencjaCC BY 4.0 ↗

Jak cytować

Opis bibliograficzny i zweryfikowane formaty eksportowe.

Format AFPiFS

M. Peno, Punishing (Non-)Citizens, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 2(13)/2016, s. 28–38, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2016.2.28

Eksportuj dane cytowania