Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:15:27.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cartesian Penology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2015

Jean-Paul Brodeur
Get access

Extract

Writing on punishment can be a punishing experience. We face two kinds of problems, each threatening to make penal reflection a futile exercise. Primarily, there is a body of research and literature which might be called hyper-critical; this research points to the weaknesses of all theories of punishment but fails to replace them by an adequate theory, either because it cannot solve the problems which it raises or because it does not want to, punishment being seen as a concept that is so fraught with difficulties of all kinds that it ought to be altogether rejected. There is, on the other hand, a second trend in the literature, which is more positive and which offers a new theory of punishment. However, what is gained at the level of theory is lost at the level of application: not only is current penal practice unrelated to the proposed ideal, but its proponents do not see at present how we should proceed in adjusting practice to achieve this ideal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 5 , Issue 1: Reflections on Sentencing and Corrections , January 1992 , pp. 15 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Wasserstrom, R. Philosophy and Social Issues (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

2. See Hulsman, L. Peines perdues: le système pénal en question (Paris: Le Centurion, 1982).Google Scholar Mathiesen, T. The Politics of Abolition (London: Martin Robertson, 1974).Google Scholar Mathiesen, T. Law, Society and Political Action (Toronto: Academic Preṡs, 1980).Google Scholar

3. See Duff, R.A. Trials and Punishments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

4. See Kant, I. TThe Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Ladd, J. (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1965).Google Scholar

5. Walker, N. Behavior and Misbehavior (New York: Basic Books, 1977).Google ScholarPubMed

6. See Black, D. The Behavior of Law (New York: Academic Press, 1976) at 5.Google Scholar

7. Canada, Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1987) at 106.Google Scholar

8. See Vogue, A. &Neufville, J. La règle de Saint Benoît (Paris: Cerf, Sources Chretiennes, 1972). (with Latin text)Google Scholar

9. SeeRegula art. 23-25.

10. Ibid. art. 28.

11. Ibid. art. 30.

12. Ibid. art. 27.

13. SeeIgnatieff, M. (1987). Imprisonment and the Need for Justice Toronto: Address to the 1987 Criminal Justice Congress, Toronto.Google Scholar

14. See Duff,supra, note 3.

15. Simone, Weil The Need for Root , tran Wills, A.F. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952) at 20.Google Scholar

16. Simone, Weil, “Human Personality” in Panichas, G.A. ed., The Simone Weil Reader New York: David McKay Company Inc, 1977) at 336.Google Scholar

17. See Jareborg, N. Essays in Criminal Law (Uppsala: Iustus Forlag, 1988) at 77.Google Scholar

18. Ibid. at 75.

19. See Driver, G.R. &Miles, J.C. The Assyrians Laws (Oxford, 1975). Reprint of the edition Oxford 1935 with supplementary additions and corrections by Driver, G.R. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen.Google Scholar

20. See Driver, G.R. &Miles, J.C. The Babylonian Laws (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).Google Scholar

21. See Gernet, L. Morals and Laws in Ancient Greece (New York: Arno Press, 1979.Google Scholar SeeGernet, L. Droit et institutions en Grèce antique (Paris: Flammarion, 1982).Google Scholar

22. See Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, vol.2 (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1969).Google Scholar

23. Ibid. at 50.

24. SeeThe Laws, IX, 866b.

25. See Quinton, A. “On Punishment” 1954) XIV Analysis 512.Google Scholar

26. See Wittgenstein, L. The Blue and Brown Books, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958) at 35. (Emphasis in original text.)Google Scholar

27. Canada, supra, note 7 at 105–07.Google Scholar

28. See Australia,Law Reform Commission of Australia, Sentencing Report No. 44 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Office, at 18 para 37.Google Scholar

28. See Canada, supra, note 7 at 144.

30. See Jareborg, supra, note 17 at 107.

31. See Wasserstrom, supra, note 1.

32. See Quinton, supra, note 25.

33. See Duff, supra, note 3.

34. Ibid.

35. SeeKripke, S. On Rules and Private Language (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

36. See Jareborg, supra, note 17 at 107 and 113

37. Ibid. at 107.

38. Jareborg is careful to specify that general prevention does not coincide with general deterrence. General prevention “has also to do with people’s ‘internalization’ of the norms of the criminal Law.” [bid. at 121

39. Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

40. Duarle v. The Queen, (1990) 74 C.R.(3d) 281.

41. See Thomas, D.A. Thomas, Principles of Sentencing (London: Heinemann, 1979). at 8–9.Google Scholar

42. See Christie, N. Christie, Limits to Pain (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1982). at 13–20.Google Scholar

43. See Durkheim, E. Les règies cle la méthode sociologique 17e éd. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1968).Google Scholar

44. See Bentham, J. Principles of Penal Law in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol.1 (Edinburgh: John Bowring, 1843) at 408.Google Scholar

45. See Foucault, M. Surveiller et Punir (Paris: Gallimard, 1975).Google Scholar

46. See Manning, P. The Narc’s Game (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980).Google Scholar SeeBrodeur, J.-P. “Legitimizing Police Deviance” in Shearing, C. ed., Organizational Police Deviance (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981) at 127.Google Scholar

47. Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its Review of Conditional Release and Related Aspects of Corrections, Taking Responsibility, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1988) (Chair:Daubney, D.)).Google Scholar

48. See Markwart, A.E. & Corrado, R. “Is the Young Offenders Act More Punitive?” in Beaulieu, L.A. ed., Young Offenders Dispositions (Toronto: Wall & Thompson, 1989).Google Scholar

49. Canada,supra, note 7.

50. See Wilkins, L.T. Consumerist Criminology (London: Heinemann, 1984).Google ScholarSee also Hulsman, supra, note 2.