Krasemann - Blog Post 6

 

Amy Berg’s journal article “Bright Lines in Juvenile Justice” raises questions about the retributive justice. Berg establishes early on that juveniles are more often than not given less severe punishments compared to adults because they are not as culpable as adults. 

 

In her words, “Those few juveniles who are as culpable as adults will be treated as if they are not, and as a result they will be punished more lightly than equally culpable adults would be” (6). This statement early on in the article makes me question the underlying effect on retributive justice. How do under punishment and over punishment pertain to retributive justice?

 

Later on in the article, Berg explains that bright lines are “at least partly based on a concern that our justice system isn’t retributive enough” (16). These bright lines produce over and under punishment as it pertains to not only juveniles but also people in situations of drunk driving and affirmative action. Considering retributive action in this case, is a lack of retribution better than over punishment? If society’s justice system centers around retributive justice, under punishment is problematic. The citizen is not paying enough, or any, retribution for their crime.

 

In the case of juveniles, “the moral risks of overpunishment are significant” (12). I would believe that for a society that emphasizes retributive justice, under punishment can be just as significant. There is a moral issue with over punishing a relatively innocent citizen, but through under punishment, there is a lack of retribution. Is it worth disregarding retribution when considering juvenile justice for similar reasons that there are bright lines in place that protect juveniles? All in all, the topic of juvenile justice is murky, and even with the bright lines there are clear speed bumps for society looking to enact successful retributive justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more