Retributive Theory

513 Words2 Pages

In Joel Feinberg’s article, The Expressive Function of Punishment, Feinberg determines that the best tactic to justify punishment is the expressive function of punishment rather than retributive theory. Clearly, Feinberg is referring to the expressive theory of law which states that a theory that evaluates legal actions of officials can symbolize or express an idea or opinion. Also, the retributive theory is the theory of justice that states that the best response to a crime is a punishment that is proportionate to the crime and serves for its own sake such as a deterrence. In order to make this claim to justify punishment, Feinberg must first define punishment in which he states, “in effect, as the infliction of hard treatment by an authority …show more content…

First, Feinberg relies on the fact that punishment is a form of condemnation itself and argues that it is easier to show punishment as having symbolic significance than to distinctly articulate what that punishment expresses (Feinberg 402). Furthermore, to legitimize his claim he speaks of democratic countries in general that can express their community’s disapproval by the punishment for a criminal.
However, the second premise focuses on aspects of the problem of strict criminal liability and the degree of the punishment that is executed by a legal act of an official. Feinberg’s view of strict liability in terms of criminal offenses in which there is no fault such as hefty fines (or civil penalties) for not obeying traffic laws is that the legal system should hold the same strict liability for imprisonment as well (Feinberg 417). As for the degree of punishment he argues that hard treatment and symbolic condemnation are truly necessary to complete a sufficient definition of

Open Document