Search results

1

Odpowiedzialność karna a determinizm antropologiczny

100%

Peno M.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2014

|

issue XXXVI

109-132

EN

Much has been written recently about the problem of justifying punishment in the context of anthropological determinism and incompatibilism. However, the problem of the relationship between determinism, on the one hand, and the theory of punishment, on the other, is multi-dimensional. This article focuses on criminal responsibility in a world of determinism. It is mostly an attempt to review the basic concepts and issues in the philosophy of responsibility and compare them with the concepts and issues of the criminal law as broadly defined. The starting point is the observation that if the thesis of determinism is true and it is not possible to reconcile determinism with human freedom, then it will be particularly difficult to justify punishment. Prima facie, this applies to retributionism, although a more thorough analysis leads to the conclusion that various utilitarian approaches will also have to be significantly modified to allow for determinism. Punishment can obviously implement certain goals and be useful in some way without necessarily being just (it can even be cruel and/or immoral). Punishment may be formally fair (like revenge) and constitute “an eye for an eye.” However, if people do not have free will, then they are not responsible for their misdeeds. This is problematic as they do not deserve revenge and their behaviour does not merit condemnation. However, it is possible to apply different measures which are closer to the sui generis of preventive measures. This paper attempts to demonstrate that there is a link between criminal punishment and moral responsibility. This follows from the fact that punishment is marked by moral condemnation and only a morally responsible person can be condemned. Excluding moral responsibility therefore makes it impossible to condemn a perpetrator. The distinguishing feature of, and (indirectly) the moral justification for, criminal punishment are thereby eliminated. In particular, from a retributionist viewpoint, punishment can only be justified if the wrongdoer is morally responsible for his/her actions (in the sense that he/she can be accused of having upset the moral order). If the perpetrator is not morally responsible, it is difficult to morally justify the legitimacy and practice of punishment. Furthermore, the premise about moral responsibility is a prerequisite for justifying punishment in any case involving the notion of guilt. A lack of moral responsibility in a world ruled by determinism does not necessarily mean that people should not be punished for wrongdoing. Nor does it mean that there are no arguments in favour of maintaining the practice of punishment. The basic question is what views – empirical or emotional – should be given priority in the science of criminal law. The answer lies in the demand for minimalism in the criminal law and for a reflective analysis of the foundations of criminal responsibility.

2

Czy teoria ewolucji może pomóc w uzasadnieniu kary kryminalnej? Od filozofii politycznej do nauk ewolucyjnych

58%

Peno M.

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

|

2015

|

issue Acta Iuris nr 12

PL

Starania filozofów o usprawiedliwienie lub wyjaśnienie praktyki karania sięgają korzeniami początków historii prawa karnego. Współcześnie renesans przeżywa teoria ewolucji, której zasięg wydaje się na tyle szeroki, by w oparciu o nią próbować wyjaśniać podstawowe instytucje społeczne. Kara kryminalna należy do podstawowych instytucji funkcjonujących w niemal wszystkich społeczeństwach. Wydaje się, że można wyjaśnić i pośrednio uzasadnić karę kryminalną poprzez odwołanie się do teorii ewolucji, a przy tym próbować bronić poglądu, że kara kryminalna jest ewolucyjną odpowiedzią na znane wszystkim grupom ludzkim zjawisko psychopatii – przy założeniu, że psychopatia ma podłoże ewolucyjne. Co więcej, istnieje ogromna różnica między karą a zemstą, którą łatwo zauważyć właśnie na gruncie teorii ewolucji. Kara nie jest atawizmem, nie stanowi prymitywnej zemsty i nie można powiedzieć, że jest zła moralnie, bo praktyka karania jest nie tylko zdeterminowana, ale i najlepsza z możliwych.

EN

Punishment is an important communal matter. As far back in history we can go, philosophers have tried to explain and justify the practice of punishment. It is obvious, that humans always live in social groups and cooperative activities play a crucial role. In fact, every society creates institutions which can be used to protect the rules of cooperation. I show that punishment can be seen as a gift of evolution. It can be said, that according to evolutionary approach, punishment is a form of social reaction against those members of society who have natural (psychological or biological) predisposition to commit a crime. Because of the fact that ca 5 percent members of every society should be classified as psychopaths, we need some kind of the preventive mechanism. It is assumed that the phenomenon of psychopathy is the alternative strategy of evolution. It is said that on the ground of evolutionary approach punishment is treated as revenge. Last but not least, in the article will be shown that there are important differences between the practice of punishment and pure revenge.

3

Autonomia – przymus – granice karania (uwagi na tle filozofii Josepha Raza)

58%

Peno M.

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

|

2016

|

issue Acta Iuris nr 16

PL

Celem artykułu jest analiza tych koncepcji mieszczących się w filozofii prawa Josepha Raza, które są przydatne do zbadania problemu uzasadnienia karania i granic prawa karnego. Punktem wyjścia jest zasada krzywdy, którą Raz rozważa w kontekście pojęcia autonomii jednostki. Autonomia jest – zasadniczo – wartością wymagającą ochrony. Wydaje się, że nawet w społeczeństwie liberalnym i demokratycznym zasada krzywdy może być odczytana w taki sposób, by uzasadnione było stosowanie kary w celu ochrony autonomii, czyli możliwości samodecydowania o sobie. Prawo karne może służyć ochronie takiej moralności, która będzie spójna z koncepcją człowieka jako podmiotu autonomicznej. Takie stanowisko jest do pogodzenia z pluralizmem aksjologicznym i nie oznacza automatycznie ingerencji w sumienia czy oceny moralne obywateli. Co więcej, w artykule sformułowane zostały ogólne uwagi polityczno-kryminalnej, których podstawą jest zasada kary jako racji ostatecznej i jednocześnie narzędzia ochrony wartości liberalnych i demokratycznych.

EN

This paper suggests that Raz’s concept of autonomy can be used in the philosophy of criminal law. Certainly, criminal law has limits. ‘Harm principle’ is one of the most important proposals for principled limits to the criminal law. Joseph Raz uses the harm principle in the context of the concept of the personal autonomy. It can be seen that his theory explains (partly) the problem of the justification of punishment and its limits (in the liberal societies). It is possible to justify the criminal law (or punishment) as an method of protection ‘collective goods’, and even liberal and democratic ordo iuris. It can be said that the law must be in some sense neutral. On the other hand, Raz claims the law must protect personal autonomy. This paper suggests that according to Raz’s philosophy of law a state might use criminal law to promote this morality which is coherent with the concept of the person as an autonomous (self-government) agent. Moreover, the article briefly examines three problems connected with punishment, i.e. axiological pluralism, paternalism and legal moralism, and their consequences for the practice of punishment (in the context of criminal policy)

Refine search results

2 Acta Iuris Stetinensis

1 Archiwum Kryminologii

1 2016

1 2015

1 2014

3 Peno M.

Odpowiedzialność karna a determinizm antropologiczny

Czy teoria ewolucji może pomóc w uzasadnieniu kary kryminalnej? Od filozofii politycznej do nauk ewolucyjnych

Autonomia – przymus – granice karania (uwagi na tle filozofii Josepha Raza)