A Survey of Utilitarian Philosophers’ Reading on Capital Punishment Deterrence

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of criminal law and criminology, University of Ferdowsi, Mashad, Iran

2 Criminal law and criminology, faculty of law, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

The intellectual movement of utilitarianism focuses on the association of ideas with the aim of maximizing pains but minimizing possible benefits of committing a crime. This school of thought considers punishment as an instrument, including capital punishment as well as seeks to achieve the greatest social benefits in terms of imposing punishments. Therefore, remainist utilitarians as well as abolitionists have made numerous intellectual and philosophical efforts to provide a moral or philosophical justification in a bid to justify imposition or disimposition capital punishment a several years ago. Critical analysis of these two groups exhibits serious philosophical or practical challenges of utilitarian goals as well as makes the necessity of hybrid philosophical approach to capital punishment. We are going to analyze capital punishment through using utilitarian (philosophers’) reference texts critically. Hence, the present research aims to analyze the utilitarian (philosophers’) different perceptions and readings about the imposition of capital punishment as well as explain serious problems and challenges facing capital punishment deterrence through emphasizing the utilitarianism school, not others.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. منابع و مآخذ

    1. افلاطون (1367). دوره آثار افلاطون، ترجمه محمدحسن لطفی، جلد چهارم، تهران، شرکت سهامی انتشارات خوارزمی.

    2. بکاریا، سزار (1389).جرائم و مجازات‌ها، ترجمه محمد‌علی اردبیلی، چاپ ششم، تهران، میزان.

    3. جوان‌جعفری بجنوردی، عبدالرضا، زهرا فرهادی آلاشتی و سید‌محمد‌جواد ساداتی (1395). «بازدارندگی و سنجش آن در فلسفه کیفر»، پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری گیلان، سال هفتم، ش 2.

    4. حسینی، سیدمحمد و علی صابری تولایی (1393). «توجیه مجازات: بررسی یک نظریه ترکیبی»، دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، ش 67 .

    5. ساکی، محمدرضا (1380). جرائم مواد مخدر از دیدگاه حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران، خط سوم.

    6. فرح‌بخش، مجتبی (1392). جرم‌انگاری فایده‌گرایانه، تهران، میزان.

    7. قناد، فاطمه (1379). «بررسی تناسب میان جرم و مجازات در جرائم مواد مخدر در نظام حقوقی ایران»، همایش بین‌المللی علمی ـ کاربردی جنبه‌های مختلف سیاست جنایی در قبال مواد مخدر، جلد اول، نشر روزنامه رسمی کشور.

    8. یزدیان جعفری، جعفر (1391). چرایی و چگونگی مجازات، چاپ اول، تهران، انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی.

    9. لاک، جان (1391). رساله‌ای درباره حکومت، ترجمه حمید عضدانلو، تهران، نشر نی.

    10. مرکز آمار جمهوری اسلامی ایران (1397). «دستگیرشدگان در ارتباط با انواع مواد مخدر کشف شده به تفکیک نوع جرم»،قابل بازیابی از : DastgirShodegan_Mavad_Mokhader  https://www.amar.org.ir/

    1. Becker, Gary S. (1968). "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," in Journal of Political Economy. 76 (2).
    2. --- (2006). On the Economics of Capital Punishment. Economists’ Voice.www.bepress.com/ev.
    3. Becker, Gary S and Richard A Posner (2009). Uncommon Sense: Economic Insights, from Marriage to Terrorism. The University of Chicago Press.
    4. Bedau, Hugo Adam (1983). Bentham's Utilitarian Critique of the Death Penalty, In Crim, L. and Criminology.
      1. Bentham, Jeremy (2012). The Rationale of Punishment, Forgotten Books.
    5. --- (2018). The Works of Jeremy Bentham (volume11), Forgotten Books.
    6. ---. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jonathan Bennett,
    7. Braund, Susanna (2009). Seneca: De Clementia, Oxford University Press
    8. Conway, D. A (1975). Capital Punishment and Deterrence, Some Considerations in Dialogue.
    9. Ehrlich, Isaac (1975). "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death", In The American Economic Review, 65(3).
    10. Farrow, Scott and O. Zerbe. Richard. (2013). Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis, Edward Elgar Pub.
    11. Godwin, Grover Maurice (2000). Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology: A Collaborative Approach to.
    12. Gross, R. (2014). "Rate of False Conviction of Criminal Defendants: Who Are Sentenced to Death", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States of America, (Article)
    13. Hart, H., (1960). "Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 60.
    14. Haag, Van den (1995). On Deterrence and the Death Penalty, In Punishment and the Death Penalty: The Current Debate, eds. R. M. Baird and S. E. Rosenbaum. Prometheus Books,
    15. Haag, Van den and Conrad Ernest and Phillips John (1983). The Death Penalty: A Debate. Springer.
      1. Hartjen, Clayton A (1981). "Crime as Commonsense Theory" in Criminology.
    16. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility, Oxford University Press.
    17. Hudson, B. )2003(. Understanding Justice, An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives, and Controversies in Modern Penal Theory, Open University Press.
    18. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates.
    19. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2015.
    20. Marsh, I. (2006). Theories of Crime, Routledge.
    21. Melusky, Joseph Anthony and Keith A. Pesto (2017). The Death Penalty: A Reference Handbook.
      1. Mill, John Stuart (1868)." Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment in", The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XXVIII. Public and Parliamentary Speeches.
    22. Murphy, Jeffrie G. (1987)."Does Kant Have a Theory of Punishment?" In Columbia Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 3.
    23. Mocan, H. Naci and R. Kaj Gittings (2003). "Getting off Death Row: Computed Sentences and the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment", Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLVI.
    24. National Research Council and Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (NRC and DBASSE) (2012). Deterrence and the Death Penalty, National Academies Press.
    25. Nisbett, Richard and Lee Ross (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Short Comings of Social Judgment, Prentice-Hall.
      1. Pojman, L. P and J. Reiman (1998). The Death Penalty: For and Against, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
    26. Siegel, Larry J. and , J. Joseph Senna )2005(. Introduction to Criminal Justice: Wadsworth Publishing.
    27. Siegel, L and B. Welsh (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
    28. Simon, Herbert Alexander (1997). Models of Bounded Rationality, Vol. 3, Empirically Grounded Economic Reason, The MIT Press.
    29. U.S. Supreme Court, Furman V. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Furman v. Georgia, No. 69-5003, Argued January 17, 1972, Decided June 29, 1972*, 408 U.S. 238.  Page 408. Available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/case.html.
    30. www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/877666/.
    31. UN Human Rights Council, High-level Panel Discussion on the Question of the Death Penalty: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 16 July 2015, A/HRC/30/21, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/55d2fb064.html [accessed 27 November 2019].

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics