In Defence of Punishment and the Unified Theory of Punishment: A Reply

Brooks, Thom

Abstract

My book, Punishment, has three aims: to provide the most comprehensive and updated examination of the philosophy of punishment available, to advance a new theory—the unified theory of punishment—as a compelling alternative to available theories and to consider the relation of theory to practice. In his recent review article, Mark Tunick raises several concerns with my analysis. I address each of these concerns and argue they rest largely on misinterpretations which I restate and clarify here.

Citation

Brooks, T. (2016). In Defence of Punishment and the Unified Theory of Punishment: A Reply. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(3), 629-638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9348-8

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Online Publication Date: Nov 12, 2014
• Publication Date: Sep 1, 2016
• Deposit Date: Nov 10, 2014
• Publicly Available Date: Nov 11, 2014
• Journal: Criminal Law and Philosophy
• Print ISSN: 1871-9791
• Electronic ISSN: 1871-9805
• Publisher: Springer
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 629-638
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9348-8
• Keywords: Expressivism, Hegel, Legal moralism, Retribution, Unified theory of punishment.
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1420327