Towards the reconciliation of retributivism and rehabilitation in the face of social exclusion

在过去的五年里，冯·赫希的报复主义和康复主义已经从相互冲突的范式转变为一致的范式。我的目的是表明它们也可以被解释为相互关联的。我的假设很简单：虽然尊重道德能动性和自主性的要求在抽象上只创造了消极的防御性义务，但在严重的社会排斥面前，不关注违法者的福利，尊重是不可能的。在“高犯罪、高惩罚、高不平等”均衡的背景下，报复主义可以被重新解释为包含(i)改造的义务和（ii）必要的量刑框架，因此，被解释为促进包容均衡的努力的组成部分。此外，报复主义和康复之间的和解可以为“人道主义”康复的概念提供规范性的理由，这种概念对政策的影响不同于其被广泛接受的结果主义对应物。它要求通过改造来“照顾”罪犯不仅仅是减少再犯的一种手段，也不仅仅是一种意识形态的偏好，而是面对社会排斥时合理惩罚的先决条件。因此，有很强的规范性理由偏爱“美好生活模式”和康复的戒断范式，以及系统地解决戒断的痛苦和以风险为重点的康复的痛苦。

Von Hirsch's retributivism and rehabilitation have moved in the last half decade from conflicting to consistent paradigms. I aim to show that they can also be construed as interconnected. My assumption is simple: although the requirement ofrespecting moral agency and autonomy creates, in the abstract, only negative, defensive obligations, in the face of severe social exclusion respect is impossible without attention to offenders' welfare. In the context of a 'high-crime, high-punishment, high-inequality' equilibrium, retributivism can be re-interpreted as incorporating (i) an obligation to rehabilitate and (ii) the necessary sentencing framework and, thereby, construed as integral to efforts of fosteringequilibria of inclusion. Moreover, a reconciliation between retributivism and rehabilitation could provide a normative justification for a conception of 'humanitarian' rehabilitation that has different implications for policy than its widelyaccepted consequentialist counterpart. It entails that 'caring' for offenders through rehabilitation is not merely a means for reducing recidivism, nor a mere ideological preference, but a precondition for justified punishment in the face of socialexclusion. There are thus strong normative reasons for preferring the Good Lives Model and desistance paradigm of rehabilitation, as well as for systematically addressing the pains of desistance and the pains of risk-focused rehabilitation.