1. Αρχική σελίδα
  2. Αναζήτηση

Assessing the compatibility of the recidivist sentencing premium with retributivism in sentencing

Το τεκμήριο παρέχεται από τον φορέα :
Συντακτική Επιτροπή Επιστήμης και Κοινωνίας   

Αποθετήριο :
Επιστήμη και Κοινωνία: Επιθεώρηση Πολιτικής και Ηθικής Θεωρίας  | ΕΚΤ eJournals   

δείτε την πρωτότυπη σελίδα τεκμηρίου
στον ιστότοπο του αποθετηρίου του φορέα για περισσότερες πληροφορίες και για να δείτε όλα τα ψηφιακά αρχεία του τεκμηρίου*



Assessing the compatibility of the recidivist sentencing premium with retributivism in sentencing (EL)
«Assessing the Compatibility of the Recidivist Sentencing Premium with Retributivism in Sentencing» (EN)
Kourakis, Filippos
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
2025-05-11
It is a shared practice among various and diverse penal systems around the world to punish recidivists more harshly than first-timeoffenders. Despite the breadth of this practice, philosophically justifying this extra punishment has been a rather demanding intellectual task, especially for retributive scholars. According to the archetypical retributive scheme of punishment, the latter is justified ‘because and only because offenders deserve it’ (Moore 2009: 31). In this vein, the question which arises is whether retributivism can account for the increased punishment of recidivists, even if they engage in precisely the same criminal act with a first-time offender. The study scrutinises four retributive accounts of the recidivist premium, which seek to ground harsher punishment for recidivists by addressing the way in which culpability can be enhanced due to the offender’s prior convictions. Acknowledging each account’s conceptual limitations, this essay concludes that the most plausible retributive account for the foundation of the recidivist premium is served by the Notice theory, according to which the repeat offender is more culpable due to his/her premeditation to reoffend, albeit having experienced firsthand formal criminal punishment and thus supposedly having gotten to appreciate the implications of his/her wrongdoing. (EL)
It is a shared practice among various and diverse penal systems around the world to punish recidivists more harshly than first-time offenders. Despite the breadth of this practice, philosophically justifying this extra punishment has been constituting a rather demanding intellectual task, especially for retributive scholars. According to the archetypical retributive scheme of punishment, the latter is justified "because and only because offenders deserve it" (Moore, 2009: 31). In this vein, the question which arises is whether retributivism can account for the increased punishment of recidivists, even if they engage in precisely the same criminal act with a first-time offender. The study scrutinises four retributive accounts of the recidivist premium, which seek to ground harsher punishment for recidivists by addressing the way in which culpability can be enhanced due to the offender’s prior convictions. Acknowledging each account's conceptual limitations, this essay concludes that the most plausible retributive account for the foundation of the recidivist premium is served by the Notice theory, according to which the repeat offender is more culpable due to his/her premeditation to reoffend, albeit having experienced firsthand formal criminal punishment and thus supposedly having gotten to appreciate the implications of his/her wrongdoing. (EN)
Επιστήμη και Κοινωνία: Επιθεώρηση Πολιτικής και Ηθικής Θεωρίας
Αγγλική γλώσσα
Συντακτική Επιτροπή (EL)
1108-3697
Επιστήμη και Κοινωνία: Επιθεώρηση Πολιτικής και Ηθικής Θεωρίας; Αρ. 45 (2025): ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΑ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑ; 138-160 (EL)
Science and Society: Journal of Political and Moral Theory; No. 45 (2025): ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΑ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑ; 138-160 (EN)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
Copyright (c) 2025 Filippos Kourakis (EN)
Συντακτική Επιτροπή Επιστήμης και Κοινωνίας
Επιστήμη και Κοινωνία: Επιθεώρηση Πολιτικής και Ηθικής Θεωρίας
Articles



*Η εύρυθμη και αδιάλειπτη λειτουργία των διαδικτυακών διευθύνσεων των συλλογών (ψηφιακό αρχείο, καρτέλα τεκμηρίου στο αποθετήριο) είναι αποκλειστική ευθύνη των αντίστοιχων Φορέων περιεχομένου.