FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3124689237> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3124689237 startingPage "1141" @default.
• W3124689237 abstract "INTRODUCTIONMany criminal defendants are held in detention while they await trial. Though conditions in pretrial detention are much like those in prison, detention is technically not punishment. Since detainees are merely accused of crimes, they are presumed innocent.1 Their detention is not intended to punish them, and so, the Supreme Court has said, it is not at all.2 Rather, detention is a means of promoting public safety, reducing witness intimidation, and preventing people accused of crimes from fleeing before trial.Nevertheless, defendants who are convicted generally receive credit at sentencing for time served in pretrial detention.3 An offender who deserves two years of incarceration as will have his sentence cut in half if he has already spent one year in detention. Such offsets appear to conflict with principles of proportional punishment. Taken literally, giving credit for time served leads us to systematically underpunish detainees by reducing their by time spent unpunished. To unlock the mystery of credit for time served, defenders of proportionality need to square the widely held view that offenders should receive credit for time served with the widely held view that should be proportional to blameworthiness.One seemingly plausible solution that I suggest in Part I is to modify our understanding of proportionality. Courts and legal scholars sometimes draw too sharp of a distinction between formal and other harms inflicted by the state. On more careful reflection, however, what they really seem to care about is not proportional but proportional which includes not only the suffering and deprivation of formal but also the suffering and deprivation of punishment look-alikes, like pretrial detention. Even though pretrial detention is technically not punishment, it is harsh treatment, and most people are inclined to give offenders credit for it.Shifting to proportional harsh treatment, however, solves one problem at the expense of several others. As I argue in Part II, once we understand severity in terms of harsh treatment rather than a more neatly bordered but inaccurate construct like days in prison, we must consider the actual amount of harsh treatment we inflict.4 The amount will vary based on (1) the particular facilities to which inmates are assigned, (2) how inmates experience those facilities, (3) how confinement harms them relative to their unpunished baselines, and (4) how they are affected by the collateral consequences of incarceration for decades to come. Even if these harms do not constitute punishment, they contribute to sentence severity as surely as pretrial detention does.While we could try to salvage proportional harsh treatment by taking all of this variation into account, I argue in Part III that when we look closely at proportional harsh treatment, it becomes much less appealing and consequentialist theories that do not depend on proportionality look comparatively more appealing. Even though retributivist notions of proportionality are central to sentencing systems around the world and are widely thought to undergird core notions of criminal justice, proportionality has profoundly counterintuitive implications.I. THE MYSTERY OF CREDIT FOR TIME SERVEDIn this Part, I describe what I mean by proportional and how it conflicts with giving offenders credit for time served. I then propose five responses proportionalists might offer to reconcile the two policies. I argue that the best reconciliation requires us to replace proportional with the more general concept of proportional harsh treatment.A. Background on the Meaning of PunishmentIn United States v. Salerno,5 the Supreme Court upheld the federal statute that provides for pretrial detention of dangerous offenders.6 Crucial to the Court's determination was its view that Congress intended pretrial detention to be regulatory rather than punitive. …" @default.
• W3124689237 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3124689237 creator A5068102462 @default.
• W3124689237 date "2013-05-01" @default.
• W3124689237 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3124689237 title "Against Proportional Punishment" @default.
• W3124689237 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W3124689237 type Work @default.
• W3124689237 sameAs 3124689237 @default.
• W3124689237 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3124689237 countsByYear W31246892372021 @default.
• W3124689237 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3124689237 hasAuthorship W3124689237A5068102462 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C152588399 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C183763965 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C202565627 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2776900844 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2777886440 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2779137516 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2779295839 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2780656516 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C2781164112 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C66487177 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C152588399 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C15744967 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C17744445 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C183763965 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C199539241 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C202565627 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2776900844 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2777886440 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2778272461 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2779137516 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2779295839 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2780656516 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C2781164112 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C66487177 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C73484699 @default.
• W3124689237 hasConceptScore W3124689237C77805123 @default.
• W3124689237 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3124689237 hasLocation W31246892371 @default.
• W3124689237 hasOpenAccess W3124689237 @default.
• W3124689237 hasPrimaryLocation W31246892371 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W142723877 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W1504467072 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W1508212892 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W1547631327 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W1572406898 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2059692153 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2069594306 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2265707676 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2472952738 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2906058295 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2908488559 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3005465905 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3056695209 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3121157435 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3121851388 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3123970807 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3125338914 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W51846908 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W2113072954 @default.
• W3124689237 hasRelatedWork W3124422326 @default.
• W3124689237 hasVolume "66" @default.
• W3124689237 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3124689237 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3124689237 magId "3124689237" @default.
• W3124689237 workType "article" @default.