Module overview
We often take it for granted that one job of the state is to catch and punish murderers, thieves, and fraudsters. But we shouldn’t take this for granted. Criminal punishment is one of the worse things the state is allowed to do to us, as it intentionally creates suffering and deprives people of their liberty. What, if anything, can justify such a practice? Many different justifications have been offered by philosophers and legal theorists. Some claim punishment justified because of its consequences, some on the grounds that criminals should get their just deserts. Others have claimed punishment is justified because of the message it communicates to the criminal or to wider society. Do any of these justifications work, or should the practice be abolished? And if the practice of criminal punishment is justified, what are the principles that determine who should get punished, and for what? Should we only punish those who cause harm, or is it justified to also punish those who merely attempt or conspire to commit crimes? Should we only punish people who harm others deliberately, or is it also legitimate to punish those who do so unawares? This module will look at questions like these, drawing on a combination of both philosophy and criminal law theory.