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

在过去的五年里，冯·赫希的报应主义和改过自新从冲突走向了一致的范式。我的目标是表明，它们也可以被解释为相互关联的。我的假设很简单：尽管尊重道德代理和自主的要求在抽象上只产生了消极的防御性义务，但面对严重的社会排斥，如果不关注罪犯的福利，尊重是不可能的。在“高犯罪、高惩罚、高不平等”均衡的背景下，报应主义可以被重新解释为包含(1)恢复原状的义务和(2)必要的量刑框架，从而被解释为促进包容均衡的努力的组成部分。此外，报应主义和康复之间的和解可以为“人道主义”康复的概念提供一个规范性的理由，这一概念对政策的影响不同于被广泛接受的结果主义的对应概念。它要求通过改过自新来关爱罪犯，不仅是减少累犯率的一种手段，也不仅仅是一种意识形态上的偏好，而且是面对社会排斥时合理惩罚的先决条件。因此，有充分的规范性理由倾向于采用康复的美好生活模式和中止模式，以及系统地解决中止的痛苦和注重风险的康复的痛苦。

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.