No description available.

No description available.

Remorse can be a powerful source of mitigation at sentencing. However, there is a lack of formal justification for this practice and a paucity of theoretical literature engaging with this issue. Addressing this gap, this thesis offers a comprehensive justification for why an offender’s remorse should mitigate the punishment he receives. It begins by discussing the emotion of remorse – its nature and value. With reference to broadly-retributive theories of punishment, it then considers various arguments that could be offered to justify the mitigating effect of remorse on the offender’s sentence. It rejects two arguments: either remorse constitutes some of the offender’s deserved punishment or remorse reduces the seriousness of the offence. Instead, it develops a justification inspired by philosophical work distinguishing blameworthiness and blaming. The thesis argues that, in the context of sentencing, a broadly-conceived dialogical model of censure is the most legitimate. Remorse, as the offender’s ideal input into the dialogue about the offence, modifies the subsequent censure required. If censure seeks a response, and this response is already forthcoming, to nonetheless continue to seek this response as if it were absent devalues the censure. Von Hirsch and Ashworth’s assertions that censure appeals to the offender as a rational moral agent, and their adherence to certain quasiretributive values, are shown to provide further support for these arguments. If the deserved censure is mitigated, then so is the corresponding punishment communicating this censure. The thesis next explores how this justification for mitigation compares with ‘mercy’ justifications, arguing that the justification offered in this thesis operates more internally to deserved censure, and is more principled, so is preferable on these grounds. In conclusion, the thesis considers the implications of its arguments for sentencing practice and whether it is a concern that they are valid only within ‘censure’ theories of punishment.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Wayne State University, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 334-353). Also available on the Internet.

In this study I tackle the problem of justifying criminal punishment. Although I take heed of a traditional line of theorizing which says that punishment is an expressive and communicative endeavour, my theory breaks away from traditional approaches. This break is motivated by a recognition that theorists working in the traditional framework have failed to resolve the tension between retributivist and consequentialist reasons for punishment. I argue that punishment is justified as a type of communication from those affected by the crime to distinct and varied audiences. My naturalistic theory is structured around two fundamental themes, naturalism and pluralism about aims. The naturalism consists in the fact that the theory takes an empirically informed descriptive approach to the problem of justifying punishment. This foundation provides the resources for developing a balanced view of the moral agent which takes into account not only cognitive but also emotional capacities. This broader, deeper view of agency permits, indeed calls for, an analysis of the moral psychologies of those involved in the social practice. That analysis leads to the explanation that punishment is a type of communication of, among other things, strong but justified moral sentiments. Further development of this view suggests that punishment's various messages are intended for a variety of audiences - not just the wrongdoer but also the victim and community. That explication supports my other fundamental theme, pluralism about aims. The social institution of punishment is a complex one involving stakeholders who have differing motives and needs. Consequently, we should reject strategies which claim that punishment's justification can be reduced to one reason such as, for example, that the criminal deserves it. I argue that punishment's justification is multifaceted and complex. The arguments I put forward to justify punishment also bring to light aspects of the existing social institution that need reform. In general, they point to the need to design penal measures that promote communication among wrongdoer, victim and community. But I also call for a specific reform. I argue that the victim, whose concerns have traditionally been disregarded, should also be given a voice within the social institution.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Texas at Dallas, 2007. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1988. / Also available in print.

Nearly 19 out of every 20 parents with 3- or 4-year-old children report spanking their child within the past year, and in schools spanking is a legal form of discipline in 19 states (nearly a quarter-million students received corporal punishment at school at least once during the 2006–2007 academic year). Although corporal punishment is a widely accepted form of child discipline in the United States, little is known about differences concerning attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment among subcultures within the United States. To address this gap, three studies were designed to examine attitudes toward corporal punishment in a few distinct subgroups that may show a propensity or aversion to spanking relative to the general public. Specifically, these studies were conducted using a panel of 420 active duty military personnel, a simple random sample of 1,357 undergraduate college students at a major research university, and a general population sample of 732 people obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial vignette design was used to examine whether sex, ethnicity or race, education, parental status, religion, religiosity, and culture affect attitudes toward corporal punishment, and whether the effects of those factors varies across subgroups. Binary logistic regression models were constructed to assess the effect that the contextual variables had on respondents’ support for the use of corporal punishment, as well as whether the respondents would use corporal punishment on their own child given the same scenario. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and content analysis was also used to examine in greater detail how attitudes toward corporal punishment vary according to religion and religiosity. Overall, 73.6 % of active duty military respondents indicated that the use corporal punishment in the vignette was appropriate, and 52.4% indicated that they would use corporal punishment on their own child given the same situation presented in the vignette. There was not a statistically significant difference between males and females in the sample, χ2 (2, N = 420) = 3.15, p = .207. In addition, those who read about a mother or a military parent were roughly 2.5 times more likely to say it was appropriate to spank the child than non-military parents and fathers respectively. When comparing the military, college student, and general population samples in the second study results show military respondents (73.6%) indicated that the use corporal punishment in the vignette was appropriate at a statistically significant, higher rate than the general population (42.8%), and college students (40.1 %), χ2 (2, N = 2,485) = 110.05, p = < .001. Similarly, 52.4% of military respondents indicated they would spank their own child given the same scenario at a statistically significant higher rate than general population (28.7%), and college students (32.4%), χ2 (2, N = 2,485) = 71.12, p = < .001. In the third study, descriptive statistics indicate attitudes toward corporal punishment vary according to religion and religiosity, as well as between active duty military personnel and civilians but that religion and religiosity do not statistically enhance the prediction of attitudes toward corporal punishment after accounting for several respondent characteristics. Open-ended rationales provided by respondents provide insight and directions for family life educators wishing to intervene with military and religious individuals (i.e., two groups with relatively high endorsement of corporal punishment).

In this study I tackle the problem of justifying criminal punishment. Although I take heed of a traditional line of theorizing which says that punishment is an expressive and communicative endeavour, my theory breaks away from traditional approaches. This break is motivated by a recognition that theorists working in the traditional framework have failed to resolve the tension between retributivist and consequentialist reasons for punishment. I argue that punishment is justified as a type of communication from those affected by the crime to distinct and varied audiences. My naturalistic theory is structured around two fundamental themes, naturalism and pluralism about aims. The naturalism consists in the fact that the theory takes an empirically informed descriptive approach to the problem of justifying punishment. This foundation provides the resources for developing a balanced view of the moral agent which takes into account not only cognitive but also emotional capacities. This broader, deeper view of agency permits, indeed calls for, an analysis of the moral psychologies of those involved in the social practice. That analysis leads to the explanation that punishment is a type of communication of, among other things, strong but justified moral sentiments. Further development of this view suggests that punishment's various messages are intended for a variety of audiences - not just the wrongdoer but also the victim and community. That explication supports my other fundamental theme, pluralism about aims. The social institution of punishment is a complex one involving stakeholders who have differing motives and needs. Consequently, we should reject strategies which claim that punishment's justification can be reduced to one reason such as, for example, that the criminal deserves it. I argue that punishment's justification is multifaceted and complex. The arguments I put forward to justify punishment also bring to light aspects of the existing social institution that need reform. In general, they point to the need to design penal measures that promote communication among wrongdoer, victim and community. But I also call for a specific reform. I argue that the victim, whose concerns have traditionally been disregarded, should also be given a voice within the social institution. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

Objective: Differences between biologic and non-biologic parents' acceptance and use of ordinary corporal punishment and use of explaining/reasoning as a disciplinary tool are examined from a sociobiological theoretical perspective. Method: Cross tabulations are used on data from a national survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 1995. Results: Contrary to predictions, differences between biologic and non-biologic parents' acceptance of ordinary corporal punishment and the use of explaining/reasoning are not statistically significant. In addition, biologic parents are found to use ordinary corporal punishment significantly more often than non-biologic parents. Conclusions: The sociobiological theoretical perspective likely underestimates the influence of culture and social structure on parent-child interactions.