type 1: Wood, Nonconsequentialist Punishment
Wood wrote this philosophical piece titled, “Punishment: Nonconsequentialism” to illustrate the different non-consequentialist theories towards punishment. He discusses two main theories the retributionist theory and the denunciation theory. Wood also mentions too “offshoot” theories of the denunciation theory. These theories are the expressive theory and communicative theory. In general, his piece is an overview of the “non-consequentialist theories of punishment, theories that seek to justify punishment through its supposed innate worth or intrinsic character, and not some consequential good or benefit it is claimed to produce, such as a higher general level of utility or well-being, or the rehabilitation of offenders” (p. 470). The central question asked by Wood as well is, “-Involving, as it does, deliberately harming individuals, how can punitive hard treatment possibly be justified?” (p. 470).
The first theory discussed by Wood is the retributionist theory. This theory states that “punishment is justified as deserved in virtue of — as a fitting response to — the offender’s wrongdoing” (p. 470). Punishment then is justified and the only response to a wrongdoing. The retributionist theory tends to be harsh, requiring punishment for any wrongdoing. Wood, however, does notice issues with this argument. He states, “The main drawback with this version of retributivism lies in its very simplicity — it does not guide as to how it is to be applied” (p. 471). All that is known is that wrongdoing must be punished. There is no description of how and how brutal the punishments should be. Too much is left to interpretation.
The second main theory illustrated is the denunciation theory. The denunciation theory states that “punishment is justified through its role in denouncing the criminal’s wrongdoing, forcefully voicing the community’s disapproval and rejection of his conduct” (p. 470). This theory is similar to the retributionist theory in that it believes that punishment is justified. However, the denunciation theory justifies punishment through the community rejection of the wrongdoing. The retributionist theory merely believes in punishment because it must be done. The denunciation theory’s justification for punishment is, “Punishment is justified insofar as it represents, symbolizes, or gives a dramatic statement to the community’s deepest moral beliefs, and voices the society’s abhorrence, resentment, and disgust at the crime” (p. 473). The society and community are essential in the denunciation theory. The punishments that align with the denunciation theory tend to be less severe than the retributionst theory as well. Wood asks“Why does the appropriate retributive response take the form of hard treatment and hard treatment of the type and amount that the particular retributive theory in question demands?” (p. 474). The denunciation theory as a whole justifies punishment through the disapproval of one’s community and society in general.
The two offshoot theories discussed by Wood are the expressive theory and communication theory. The expressive theory is a spin-off of the denunciation theory, meaning that punishment is justified as well. The general difference in the expressive theory is that “ attention to the emotions and values to be expressed through punishment” (p. 474). The communication theory differs in that, “whether it looks to the condemnation or censuring role of punishment to justify the element of hard treatment” (p. 476). Both of these theories are close to denunciation but believe in specific alternatives to typical punishment.
Overall, Wood’s piece gives a very thorough background on theories of non-consequentialist punishment. He outlines the two main theories; the retributionist and the denunciation, as well as two offshoot theories.
Bibliography:
Wood, D. (2010). Punishment: Nonconsequentialism. Philosophy Compass, 5(6), 470–482. DOI:10.1111/j.1747–9991.2010.00288.x
