A Soft Defence of a Utilitarian Principle of Criminalization

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to argue that the utilitarian principle of criminalization (UPC) is sounder than its poor reputation suggests. The paper begins by describing three possible answers to the research question: To what extent should the consequences of criminalization matter morally in a theory of criminalization? Hereafter I explain why I shall discuss only two of these answers. Then follows a detailed and critical specification of UPC. Furthermore, I will argue why criticisms of UPC made by philosophers such as Douglas Husak and Victor Tadros in their recent work are far from convincing. Finally, I will present a positive reason for accepting UPC as a principle of criminalization, namely: that UPC is consistent with what I call the Counterproductive Criminalization Principle, while non-consequentialist theories of criminalization are not.
Original languageEnglish
JournalRes Publica
Volume26
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)123-141
ISSN1356-4765
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Cite this

@article{929c9490486549f89de44214f0e7958d,
title = "A Soft Defence of a Utilitarian Principle of Criminalization",
abstract = "The aim of this paper is to argue that the utilitarian principle of criminalization (UPC) is sounder than its poor reputation suggests. The paper begins by describing three possible answers to the research question: To what extent should the consequences of criminalization matter morally in a theory of criminalization? Hereafter I explain why I shall discuss only two of these answers. Then follows a detailed and critical specification of UPC. Furthermore, I will argue why criticisms of UPC made by philosophers such as Douglas Husak and Victor Tadros in their recent work are far from convincing. Finally, I will present a positive reason for accepting UPC as a principle of criminalization, namely: that UPC is consistent with what I call the Counterproductive Criminalization Principle, while non-consequentialist theories of criminalization are not.",
author = "Petersen, {Thomas S{\o}birk}",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1007/s11158-019-09426-3",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "123--141",
journal = "Res Publica",
issn = "1356-4765",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

A Soft Defence of a Utilitarian Principle of Criminalization. / Petersen, Thomas Søbirk.

In: Res Publica, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2020, p. 123-141.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Soft Defence of a Utilitarian Principle of Criminalization

AU - Petersen, Thomas Søbirk

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - The aim of this paper is to argue that the utilitarian principle of criminalization (UPC) is sounder than its poor reputation suggests. The paper begins by describing three possible answers to the research question: To what extent should the consequences of criminalization matter morally in a theory of criminalization? Hereafter I explain why I shall discuss only two of these answers. Then follows a detailed and critical specification of UPC. Furthermore, I will argue why criticisms of UPC made by philosophers such as Douglas Husak and Victor Tadros in their recent work are far from convincing. Finally, I will present a positive reason for accepting UPC as a principle of criminalization, namely: that UPC is consistent with what I call the Counterproductive Criminalization Principle, while non-consequentialist theories of criminalization are not.

AB - The aim of this paper is to argue that the utilitarian principle of criminalization (UPC) is sounder than its poor reputation suggests. The paper begins by describing three possible answers to the research question: To what extent should the consequences of criminalization matter morally in a theory of criminalization? Hereafter I explain why I shall discuss only two of these answers. Then follows a detailed and critical specification of UPC. Furthermore, I will argue why criticisms of UPC made by philosophers such as Douglas Husak and Victor Tadros in their recent work are far from convincing. Finally, I will present a positive reason for accepting UPC as a principle of criminalization, namely: that UPC is consistent with what I call the Counterproductive Criminalization Principle, while non-consequentialist theories of criminalization are not.

U2 - 10.1007/s11158-019-09426-3

DO - 10.1007/s11158-019-09426-3

M3 - Journal article

VL - 26

SP - 123

EP - 141

JO - Res Publica

JF - Res Publica

SN - 1356-4765

IS - 1

ER -