Against Proportional Punishment
Against Proportional Punishment
复制标题
反对比例惩罚
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Adam J Kolber
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adam J Kolber
最高法院认为，审前被拘留者应被推定无罪，对他们的拘留不构成惩罚。然而，如果被定罪，被拘留者在判刑时通常会得到他们被拘留时间的扣除。我们根据未受惩罚的时间来减轻对他们的惩罚。将服刑时间计入与惩罚应与责任成比例的普遍观点相冲突。那些应该被判处一年监禁但却被审前拘留一年的罪犯可能会在宣判后立即被释放，从技术上讲，他们根本没有受到任何惩罚。解决服刑时间积分之谜的一个方法是认识到人们并不关心最高法院和许多理论家使用的狭义的“惩罚”。相反，他们寻求给予相称的“苛刻待遇”。尽管审前拘留在技术上不是惩罚，但它是国家施加的严厉待遇，大多数人认为罪犯应该为此受到赞扬。然而，将重点转移到相称的严厉待遇上，解决了一个问题，却牺牲了其他几个问题。因为，如果国家在定罪前施加的严厉待遇对评估相称性的目的有意义，那么国家在定罪后施加的严厉待遇肯定也应该有意义。虽然我们可以通过更好地衡量严厉的待遇来挽救相称性，但我解释了这样做有时会产生荒谬的后果。尽管报应主义的相称性概念是世界各地量刑系统的核心，并被广泛认为是刑事司法核心概念的基础，但相称的惩罚和相称的严厉待遇都有深刻的反直觉含义。当报应主义比例理论的弱点被揭示出来时，结果主义惩罚理论看起来相应地更有吸引力。
The Supreme Court has held that pretrial detainees are presumed innocent and that their detention does not constitute punishment. If convicted, however, detainees usually receive credit at sentencing for the time they spent in detention. We reduce their punishment by time spent unpunished.Crediting time served conflicts with the commonly held view that punishment should be proportional to blame. Offenders who deserve to be punished by a year in prison but spend a year in pretrial detention may be released immediately at sentencing and technically receive no punishment at all.One way to solve the mystery of credit for time served is to recognize that people don’t care about proportional “punishment” in the narrow way the Supreme Court and many theorists use the term. Rather, they seek to dispense proportional “harsh treatment.” Even though pretrial detention is technically not punishment, it is harsh treatment inflicted by the state, and most believe offenders deserve credit for it.Shifting focus to proportional harsh treatment, however, solves one problem at the expense of several others. For if state-inflicted harsh treatment before conviction counts for purposes of assessing proportionality, then surely state-inflicted harsh treatment afterward should count too. While we could try to salvage proportionality by better measuring harsh treatment, I explain the sometimes absurd consequences of doing so.Even though retributivist notions of proportionality are central to sentencing systems around the world and are widely thought to undergird core notions of criminal justice, both proportional punishment and proportional harsh treatment have profoundly counterintuitive implications. When the weaknesses in retributivist proportionality are revealed, consequentialist punishment theories look correspondingly more appealing.