What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Punish?: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Punishment
Why do we punish? Is it because only punishment can achieve justice for victims and 'right the wrong' of a crime? Or is it justified because it reduces crime, by deterring potential offenders, offering rehabilitative treatment to others and incapacitating the most dangerous? The complex answers to this enduring question vary across time and place, and are directly linked to people's personal, cultural, social, religious and ethical commitments and even their sense of identity.
This unique introduction to the philosophy of punishment provides a systematic analysis of the themes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and restorative justice. Integrating philosophical, sociological, political and ethical perspectives, it provides a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the purposes, meanings and justifications of punishment for crime and the extent to which punishment does, could or should live up to what it claims to achieve.
Why Punish? challenges criminology and criminal justice students as well as policy makers, judges, magistrates and criminal justice practitioners to think more critically about the role of punishment and the moral principles that underpin it. Bridging abstract theory with the realities of practice, Rob Canton asks what better punishment would look like and how it can be achieved.
This unique introduction to the philosophy of punishment provides a systematic analysis of the themes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and restorative justice. Integrating philosophical, sociological, political and ethical perspectives, it provides a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the purposes, meanings and justifications of punishment for crime and the extent to which punishment does, could or should live up to what it claims to achieve.
Why Punish? challenges criminology and criminal justice students as well as policy makers, judges, magistrates and criminal justice practitioners to think more critically about the role of punishment and the moral principles that underpin it. Bridging abstract theory with the realities of practice, Rob Canton asks what better punishment would look like and how it can be achieved.
242 pages, Paperback
Published June 20, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 1, 2020
Weighty, onerous a mental burden.
No mincing words here. This title comes straight out or left died. Written by a blatant liberal left-wing social justice warrior, the title begins with a balanced and informative analysis of the institution of punishment as a discipline from various angles, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation. Much like taking the black "piste" on a downhill slope it rapidly begins its slide toward biased propaganda and picks up speed as it advances. Toward the end of the hearts and flowers rainbow account, the author event sites radical left-ing reprobates such as the anarchist: Crackpotkin (Kropotkin) and the reprehensible Angel Davis. The author is a warm and fuzzy liberal leftist of a certain genre. Lo, that he and his should ever fall victim to the whiles of a twisted psychopath for whom he holds such marked affinity.
The author is a self-avowed apologist a died in the will liberal moaner who divests himself of social responsibility in exchange for idealistic Kantian reverie. Initially, I started listing criticism through the reading but it became such an overwhelming task that would require an entire book just to represent counter-arguments. Suffice it to say the some of the following point bear mentioning:
1. the highly selective use of biased accounts in support of his argument; The author literally fawns over the writings of Christie and Garland (also to be avoided as all costs), unless of course, you are a cognitively challenged and masochistic conservative, or a died in the wool SJW
2. The constant use of (bracketed qualifiers) to (explain every little item ) and (qualify) the original statement
3. The constant referral to either preceding or following chapters (See chapter X.Y. Z) While informing the reader what will be or has been in chapters X.Y, and Z.
4. The arrogant assumption that everyone is online with the author's rantings and the employment of the royal prerogative "We"
5. Thew virtue-signaling employment of the feminine pronoun for every example cited. Asinine in itself as most offenders are male. Still, we must remain politically correct at all costs. or lose our rainbow badge of inclusivity.
6. Perhaps most glaringly, the author cites Tonry who conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority public view or opinion is that which constitutes the collective normative ethics, the will of society, and thus, in turn, creates and dictates an ethical justification for both the administration of punishment and the taking into account of previous records of violations and persistent misconduct during sentencing determination.
7. The adoption of strongly-worded generalizations being presented as factual truth
8. These apologists seem to want to reverse the balance of the facts and excuse away and forget the injustices of criminal perpetrators by crying crocodile tears for their misfortune, that of their family and dependants at the expense of the hapless victims (remember them?) No instead of serving their sentences and accepting responsibility for their misdeed, the author and his accomplices heap disdain and criticism on the system itself. You can almost hear their plaintive cries of 'more sushi and foot massages for convicted offenders."
I have tried to be fair, and this is about as fair as I can be. Plowing through these pages at a snail pace was arduous labor at best, a true herculean uphill struggle. However, when face with such tirades as those presented on p.140 where the discourse digresses into left-wing apologetic unicorn rhetoric, condemning indiscriminate sentencing I have to ask myself where is the empirical support? Why so much demagoguery by the likes of such disreputable organizations as the ACLU?
The author draws upon Kantian Utopianism, but are the views of Immanuel Kant any more valid or legitimate than those of Bentham and Beccaria? Perhaps the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the author's leading the cause of poorly protected perverts.
At the end of the day, you may not agree with what I have to say, nor my points of view. I do not force anyone to do so, and they are free to pick and choose and think what they like. I do not apologize for my views, there is no need to. Political correctness represents the death of free through and introspection.
Caveat Emptor
No mincing words here. This title comes straight out or left died. Written by a blatant liberal left-wing social justice warrior, the title begins with a balanced and informative analysis of the institution of punishment as a discipline from various angles, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation. Much like taking the black "piste" on a downhill slope it rapidly begins its slide toward biased propaganda and picks up speed as it advances. Toward the end of the hearts and flowers rainbow account, the author event sites radical left-ing reprobates such as the anarchist: Crackpotkin (Kropotkin) and the reprehensible Angel Davis. The author is a warm and fuzzy liberal leftist of a certain genre. Lo, that he and his should ever fall victim to the whiles of a twisted psychopath for whom he holds such marked affinity.
The author is a self-avowed apologist a died in the will liberal moaner who divests himself of social responsibility in exchange for idealistic Kantian reverie. Initially, I started listing criticism through the reading but it became such an overwhelming task that would require an entire book just to represent counter-arguments. Suffice it to say the some of the following point bear mentioning:
1. the highly selective use of biased accounts in support of his argument; The author literally fawns over the writings of Christie and Garland (also to be avoided as all costs), unless of course, you are a cognitively challenged and masochistic conservative, or a died in the wool SJW
2. The constant use of (bracketed qualifiers) to (explain every little item ) and (qualify) the original statement
3. The constant referral to either preceding or following chapters (See chapter X.Y. Z) While informing the reader what will be or has been in chapters X.Y, and Z.
4. The arrogant assumption that everyone is online with the author's rantings and the employment of the royal prerogative "We"
5. Thew virtue-signaling employment of the feminine pronoun for every example cited. Asinine in itself as most offenders are male. Still, we must remain politically correct at all costs. or lose our rainbow badge of inclusivity.
6. Perhaps most glaringly, the author cites Tonry who conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority public view or opinion is that which constitutes the collective normative ethics, the will of society, and thus, in turn, creates and dictates an ethical justification for both the administration of punishment and the taking into account of previous records of violations and persistent misconduct during sentencing determination.
7. The adoption of strongly-worded generalizations being presented as factual truth
8. These apologists seem to want to reverse the balance of the facts and excuse away and forget the injustices of criminal perpetrators by crying crocodile tears for their misfortune, that of their family and dependants at the expense of the hapless victims (remember them?) No instead of serving their sentences and accepting responsibility for their misdeed, the author and his accomplices heap disdain and criticism on the system itself. You can almost hear their plaintive cries of 'more sushi and foot massages for convicted offenders."
I have tried to be fair, and this is about as fair as I can be. Plowing through these pages at a snail pace was arduous labor at best, a true herculean uphill struggle. However, when face with such tirades as those presented on p.140 where the discourse digresses into left-wing apologetic unicorn rhetoric, condemning indiscriminate sentencing I have to ask myself where is the empirical support? Why so much demagoguery by the likes of such disreputable organizations as the ACLU?
The author draws upon Kantian Utopianism, but are the views of Immanuel Kant any more valid or legitimate than those of Bentham and Beccaria? Perhaps the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the author's leading the cause of poorly protected perverts.
At the end of the day, you may not agree with what I have to say, nor my points of view. I do not force anyone to do so, and they are free to pick and choose and think what they like. I do not apologize for my views, there is no need to. Political correctness represents the death of free through and introspection.
Caveat Emptor
March 7, 2026
Decent textbook but a bit too dense
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews