No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Collective Punishment: Criminological Assessment: A Reply to Lipnowski's “A Partial Rehabilitation of the Principle of Collective Punishment”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2014
Extract
One of the former members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission was an economist who proposed the following reasoning during a conference on sentencing held in Ottawa in 1988. Since there was no doubt that doubling all fares for air travel would result, at least momentarily, in fewer customers using air transportation, it was presumed to follow at least as clearly that noticeably increasing the punishment for crime would result in fewer persons willing to engage in crime. What the economist had overlooked was that the probability that you would have to pay for your plane ticket at the increased rate is very high; actually, you cannot fly unless you have bought a ticket. In contrast, the probability that a criminal will be caught and suffer the consequences of his or her behavior is perceived to be rather low in the case of most criminals, and with regard to certain crimes, such as break and enter, is actually quite low. Hence, increasing criminal punishments will not deter criminals as automatically as raising the cost of air travel will deter potential customers.
- Type
- Exchanges/Débate
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring/printemps 1993 , pp. 127 - 130
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1993
References
1. For a classic description, see Linhart, R., L'établi (Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1978).Google Scholar
2. I wish to stress that this camel is not part of the father's original estate. It is the old man's own camel, which he offers out of generosity and then regains at the end, in a wonderful conclusion of the story. This point seems to have escaped the attention of Mr. Lipnowski in the final paragraph of his rejoinder to my own reply.