The Three Dimensions of Freedom, Crime, and Punishment
Buffalo Criminal Law Review, February 2006
- 6,008Usage
- 3Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
Ever since the protection of individual freedom replaced justice as the primary criterion for the legitimacy of government, criminal punishment, as one of the most drastic exercises of governmental authority, has been held against that standard, too. As a result, any diminution of freedom through punishment must at the same time be justifiable as a realization of freedom. So long as the loss of the criminal's freedom is traded off against gains in the protection of everyone else's freedom, consequentialist accounts provide an appealing strategy of vicarious justification. But once we require that for complete justification freedom must not only be realized for everyone else but also in the person of the criminal, a more sophisticated and inclusive strategy is required. Michael Pawlik, professor of criminal law and philosophy of law at the University of Regensburg, Germany, takes up the challenge of disentangling the paradox of punishment and freedom in his latest book Person, Subjekt, Bürger (Person, Subject, Citizen), in which he presents a highly original retributive theory of punishment. Pawlik's theory is rooted in the legal philosophy of Hegel and Fichte, whose concepts of recognition and of the subject he recasts in a framework of communication theory, inspired by the works of Günther Jakobs and Niklas Luhmann. By applying his theory to questions of criminal law doctrine such as self-defense, defense of others, provocation, and inchoate crimes, Pawlik succeeds not only in providing a plausible solution to the problem of vicarious justification, but also in bridging the gap between theory and practice.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know