No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
1) Just so soon as I was asked to send in a final, revised version of my “Retrospect and Prospect, Retribution and Deterrence” for eventual publication, it became obvious to me that all the alterations or additions which I wanted to make were alterations or additions in response to the “Comments” by Igor Primoratz. But, if I were to make the changes which I now believe to be necessary, in that original paper, then those Comments would be left in the air — apparently provoked by nothing at all. So instead I present my afterthoughts here, appropriately, as what they are, Responses to his Comments.
First, and urgently, we need to introduce a distinction between justifying (in general) and justicizing (in particular).
1 In this issue, at p. 376.
2 In this issue, at p. 388.
3 Frankena, W., “The Concept of Social Justice”, in Daniels, N., ed., Reading Rawls (Oxford, Blackwell, 1975) 16Google Scholar, previously in Brandt, R. B., ed., Social Justice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1965)Google Scholar.
4 Honderich, Ted, Punishment: The Supposed Justifications (London, Hutchinson, 1969)Google Scholar.
5 Primoratz, supra n. 2, at 395.
6 After a Conference in which so many speakers insisted upon the feminization of crime, how can we refuse similarly to feminize retribution?