Dressler, p. 30-31
Greenawalt—Punishment
1.
Why
is punishment warranted?
2.
What
conditions make punishment necessary in a particular case?
3.
What
is the appropriate severity of punishment in a particular case?
Greenwalt also talks about
why threatened punishment is sometimes not carried out and what the results
might be. He then introduces the two
broad schools of thought on punishment.
Retributivism – People ought to be punished because they deserve it.
Utilitarianism – Punishment has useful purposes.
Notes and Questions
1.
The
three questions are restated.
2.
What
is “punishment”? How about: “pain
applied to a person by society in response to that individual’s violation of a
law”? It seems that it would be clearer
if
a.
Is
it performed by, and directed at, responsible agents? If it’s for people, by people, it would seem
to fit this criterion.
b.
Are
the consequences harmful by design?
Those who wrote the statute might be of two minds on this issue. In their heart of hearts, they may want to
cause harm, but in order to successfully pass the statute, they must couch it
in terms of treatment.
c.
Are
the consequences preceded by condemnation?
Maybe not. Someone could be
committed, it would seem, even if they haven’t already committed a crime.
d.
Is
the action performed by someone in authority?
The statute grants the authority where it is needed. All in all, the status of SVPA as punishment
seems far from clear.
3.
Retributivism
seeks to correct past wrongs, utilitarianism seeks to prevent future wrongs.