Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Punishment the easy way

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Nathan, Christopher (2020) Punishment the easy way. Criminal Law and Philosophy . doi:10.1007/s11572-020-09549-2 (In Press)

[img]
Preview
PDF
WRAP-punishment-easy-way-Nathan-2020.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

Download (650Kb) | Preview
[img] PDF
WRAP-punishment-easy-way-Nathan-2020 .pdf - Accepted Version
Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer.

Download (906Kb)
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-020-09549-2

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Some argue against coercive preventive measures on the grounds that they amount to cloaked forms of punishment. Others offer a qualified defence of such measures on the grounds that such measures have substantively different goals and purposes from punishment. Focusing on the case of civil preventive injunctions, I clear the ground and provide reasons for a third logical possibility: that coercive preventive measures are relevantly similar to punishment, but this does not itself give us a reason to oppose them. ‘Punishment’ has a great deal of rhetorical force, and it thereby distracts us from the justificatory work that we need to do to specify proper restrictions on the state’s coercive powers. Whereas many commentators have proposed that legal theory provides grounds for challenging civil preventive orders, I argue for the opposite view. If we understand properly the function of civil preventive orders, we will endorse them at least in principle, and will come to rethink some central ideas in the grounding of the criminal justice processes.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies
Journal or Publication Title: Criminal Law and Philosophy
Publisher: Springer Verlag
ISSN: 1871-9791
Official Date: 2020
Dates:
DateEvent
2020Published
2 October 2020Available
14 September 2020Accepted
Date of first compliant deposit: 22 September 2020
DOI: 10.1007/s11572-020-09549-2
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: In Press
Access rights to Published version: Open Access
Related URLs:
  • Publisher

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us