Punishment. Goodwin, G. P & Gromet, D. M Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci., 5(5):561--572, September, 2014. 00000![Punishment [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex UNLABELLED: Retributivism is a deontological theory of punishment that calls for the deserved punishment of a guilty offender in proportion with his moral blameworthiness for a past offense. It is often referred to as punishment based on 'just deserts', and it contrasts with consequentialist theories that ground punishment in its potentially beneficial future consequences. Rich philosophical debate surrounds the appropriateness of retributivism. From a psychological perspective, the key question concerns whether retributivism underlies ordinary individuals' desire for the legal punishment of wrongdoers. Past research in social psychology has answered this question in the affirmative. However, much of this existing evidence requires a new look, because it is premised on a fundamental ambiguity. We review alternative evidence for the existence of retributive motives from lesser-known correlational studies, and from studies of the punishment of companies and animals. We also explore the links between retributivism and restorative justice-an alternative justice approach that focuses on repairing the harms caused by an offense. Although often cast as diametrically opposed to one another, retributive and restorative justice in fact share more in common than is often supposed. Both are premised on notions of deservingness, and their goals can be achieved by the same action (i.e., retributive punishment can restore victims). In all areas of the research we review, more work is needed to better understand: retributivism directed at human offenders, the commonalities and discontinuities between retributive and restorative justice, and how the notion of desert structures moral life and thought more generally. WIREs Cogn Sci 2014, 5:561-572. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1301 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
@article{goodwin_punishment_2014,
title = {Punishment},
volume = {5},
issn = {1939-5078},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1301},
doi = {10.1002/wcs.1301},
abstract = {UNLABELLED: Retributivism is a deontological theory of punishment that
calls for the deserved punishment of a guilty offender in proportion with
his moral blameworthiness for a past offense. It is often referred to as
punishment based on 'just deserts', and it contrasts with consequentialist
theories that ground punishment in its potentially beneficial future
consequences. Rich philosophical debate surrounds the appropriateness of
retributivism. From a psychological perspective, the key question concerns
whether retributivism underlies ordinary individuals' desire for the legal
punishment of wrongdoers. Past research in social psychology has answered
this question in the affirmative. However, much of this existing evidence
requires a new look, because it is premised on a fundamental ambiguity. We
review alternative evidence for the existence of retributive motives from
lesser-known correlational studies, and from studies of the punishment of
companies and animals. We also explore the links between retributivism and
restorative justice-an alternative justice approach that focuses on
repairing the harms caused by an offense. Although often cast as
diametrically opposed to one another, retributive and restorative justice
in fact share more in common than is often supposed. Both are premised on
notions of deservingness, and their goals can be achieved by the same
action (i.e., retributive punishment can restore victims). In all areas of
the research we review, more work is needed to better understand:
retributivism directed at human offenders, the commonalities and
discontinuities between retributive and restorative justice, and how the
notion of desert structures moral life and thought more generally. WIREs
Cogn Sci 2014, 5:561-572. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1301 For further resources
related to this article, please visit the WIREs website. CONFLICT OF
INTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this
article.},
number = {5},
journal = {Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci.},
author = {Goodwin, Geoffrey P and Gromet, Dena M},
month = sep,
year = {2014},
note = {00000},
keywords = {Sep 20 import, duplicate},
pages = {561--572}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"QuMmyWX3xYzvxe8nM","bibbaseid":"goodwin-gromet-punishment-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-04-27T04:04:44.577Z","title":"Punishment","author_short":["Goodwin, G. P","Gromet, D. M"],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/davidlloyd33","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Punishment","volume":"5","issn":"1939-5078","url":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1301","doi":"10.1002/wcs.1301","abstract":"UNLABELLED: Retributivism is a deontological theory of punishment that calls for the deserved punishment of a guilty offender in proportion with his moral blameworthiness for a past offense. It is often referred to as punishment based on 'just deserts', and it contrasts with consequentialist theories that ground punishment in its potentially beneficial future consequences. Rich philosophical debate surrounds the appropriateness of retributivism. From a psychological perspective, the key question concerns whether retributivism underlies ordinary individuals' desire for the legal punishment of wrongdoers. Past research in social psychology has answered this question in the affirmative. However, much of this existing evidence requires a new look, because it is premised on a fundamental ambiguity. We review alternative evidence for the existence of retributive motives from lesser-known correlational studies, and from studies of the punishment of companies and animals. We also explore the links between retributivism and restorative justice-an alternative justice approach that focuses on repairing the harms caused by an offense. Although often cast as diametrically opposed to one another, retributive and restorative justice in fact share more in common than is often supposed. Both are premised on notions of deservingness, and their goals can be achieved by the same action (i.e., retributive punishment can restore victims). In all areas of the research we review, more work is needed to better understand: retributivism directed at human offenders, the commonalities and discontinuities between retributive and restorative justice, and how the notion of desert structures moral life and thought more generally. WIREs Cogn Sci 2014, 5:561-572. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1301 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.","number":"5","journal":"Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci.","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Goodwin"],"firstnames":["Geoffrey","P"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gromet"],"firstnames":["Dena","M"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"September","year":"2014","note":"00000","keywords":"Sep 20 import, duplicate","pages":"561--572","bibtex":"@article{goodwin_punishment_2014,\n\ttitle = {Punishment},\n\tvolume = {5},\n\tissn = {1939-5078},\n\turl = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1301},\n\tdoi = {10.1002/wcs.1301},\n\tabstract = {UNLABELLED: Retributivism is a deontological theory of punishment that\ncalls for the deserved punishment of a guilty offender in proportion with\nhis moral blameworthiness for a past offense. It is often referred to as\npunishment based on 'just deserts', and it contrasts with consequentialist\ntheories that ground punishment in its potentially beneficial future\nconsequences. Rich philosophical debate surrounds the appropriateness of\nretributivism. From a psychological perspective, the key question concerns\nwhether retributivism underlies ordinary individuals' desire for the legal\npunishment of wrongdoers. Past research in social psychology has answered\nthis question in the affirmative. However, much of this existing evidence\nrequires a new look, because it is premised on a fundamental ambiguity. We\nreview alternative evidence for the existence of retributive motives from\nlesser-known correlational studies, and from studies of the punishment of\ncompanies and animals. We also explore the links between retributivism and\nrestorative justice-an alternative justice approach that focuses on\nrepairing the harms caused by an offense. Although often cast as\ndiametrically opposed to one another, retributive and restorative justice\nin fact share more in common than is often supposed. Both are premised on\nnotions of deservingness, and their goals can be achieved by the same\naction (i.e., retributive punishment can restore victims). In all areas of\nthe research we review, more work is needed to better understand:\nretributivism directed at human offenders, the commonalities and\ndiscontinuities between retributive and restorative justice, and how the\nnotion of desert structures moral life and thought more generally. WIREs\nCogn Sci 2014, 5:561-572. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1301 For further resources\nrelated to this article, please visit the WIREs website. CONFLICT OF\nINTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this\narticle.},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tjournal = {Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci.},\n\tauthor = {Goodwin, Geoffrey P and Gromet, Dena M},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tnote = {00000},\n\tkeywords = {Sep 20 import, duplicate},\n\tpages = {561--572}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Goodwin, G. P","Gromet, D. M"],"key":"goodwin_punishment_2014","id":"goodwin_punishment_2014","bibbaseid":"goodwin-gromet-punishment-2014","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1301"},"keyword":["Sep 20 import","duplicate"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["punishment","goodwin","gromet"],"keywords":["sep 20 import","duplicate"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["pWG6kkFjeQheTxKbs"]}