CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Criminal Justice and PenologyCriminal Law and PolicyPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Republican Theory and Criminal Punishment

Pettit, Philip·1997·Utilitas
DOI 10.1017/s0953820800005136
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Suppose we embrace the republican ideal of freedom as non-domination: freedom as immunity to arbitrary interference. In that case those acts that call uncontroversially for criminalization will usually be objectionable on three grounds: the offender assumes a dominating position in relation to the victim, the offender reduces the range or ease of undominated choice on the part of the victim, and the offender raises a spectre of domination for others like the victim. And in that case, so it appears, the obvious role for punishment will be, so far as possible, to undo such evils: to rectify the effects of the crime that make it a repugnant republican act. This paper explores this theory of punishment as rectification, contrasting it with better established utilitarian and retributivist approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0953820800005136

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Mill, 1969, Utilitarianism
  2. Lind, 1776, Three Letters to Dr Price
  3. Trenchard, 1971, Cato's Letters, ii, 249
  4. 1994, The Three R's of Republican Sentencing, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, v, 318
  5. de Secondat Montesquieu, 1989, The Spirit of the Laws, 70
  6. Hobbes, 1968, Leviathan, 264

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Authors
Pettit, P.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Pettit, Philip
ORCID
Pettit, Philip
Venue
Utilitas
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1997-03
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
59-79
ISSN
  • 0953-8208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6183
DOI
10.1017/s0953820800005136
OpenAlex
W2143401280
Cited by
67
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
123.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 4349 d)
Locations
  • Utilitas (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
republican theory, criminal sanctions, non-domination, freedom, rectification, retributivism, utilitarianism, criminalization, domination, political philosophy of punishment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review