I argue that the degree to which a criminal should be punished is determined by three elements: a baseline amount that proportionally compensates the victim and an additional penalty that, first, reforms the criminal and, second, deters others from becoming unjust. My interpretation provides a solution to the interpretive puzzle that has most vexed commentators: the alleged tension between Plato's philosophical theory of punishment and the content of his penal code. I defend a two-step solution to the puzzle. First, on my interpretation, because of the broad role that deterrence must play, this alleged tension is-to a degree-merely apparent. Second, the actual tension can be explained by Plato's commitment to the rule of law, given the epistemic limitations of actual people.
Page:
1---14
Related
Batch download
Cited By
noting
Similar Literature
Submit Feedback
Please wait while the file you selected is being converted