Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
356
result(s) for
"Retribution"
Sort by:
Of one-eyed and toothless miscreants : making the punishment fit the crime?
Can punishments ever meaningfully be proportioned in severity to the seriousness of the crimes for which they are imposed? A great deal of attention has been paid to the general justification of punishment, but the thorny practical questions have received significantly less. Serious analysis has seldom delved into what makes crimes more or less serious, what makes punishments more or less severe, and how links are to be made between them. In Of One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants, Michael Tonry has gathered together a distinguished cast of contributors to offer among the first sustained efforts to specify with precision how proportionality can be understood in relation to the implementation of punishment. Each chapter examines scholarly and lay thinking about punishment of people convicted of crimes with particular emphasis on \"making the punishment fit the crime.\" The contributors challenge the most prevalent current theories and emphasize the need for a shift away from the politicized emotionalism of recent decades. They argue that theories that coincided with mass incarceration and rampant injustice to countless individuals are evolving in ways that better countenance moving toward more humane and thoughtful approaches.0Written by many of the leading thinkers on punishment, this volume dissects previously undeveloped issues related to considerations of deserved punishment and provides new ways to understand both the severities of punishment and the seriousness of crime.
Book
Two Theories of Retribution in the Sanyuan pinjie jing
The Daoist scripture Taishang dongxuan lingbao sanyuan pinjie gongde qingzhong jing 太上洞玄靈寶三元品戒功德輕重經 (DZ 456) is a part of the ancient Lingbao scripture Taishang dongxuan lingbao sanyuan pinjie jing 太上洞玄靈寶三元品戒經. This scripture concludes with a discussion on “karmic causality, merit, and retribution” (yuandui gongde baoying 緣對功德報應), addressing two prevalent theories of retribution during the Eastern Jin東晉 (317–420) period: the traditional Chinese concept of familial “inherited burden” (chengfu 承負) and the Buddhist theory of karmic retribution (yebao 業報). This scripture is the first attempt to integrate Daoist concepts such as “true body” (zhenshen 真身) and “true parents” (zhen fumu 真父母) with Buddhist doctrines such as kalpic cycles and merit transfer (huixiang 迴向), reconciling the contradictions between the two. While incorporating the Buddhist theory of karmic retribution, the Sanyuan pinjie jing also establishes a comprehensive system of surveillance by the Three Officials (sanguan 三官) to ensure the implementation of karmic retribution. In short, the discussion of retribution in this scripture reflects the fact that the ancient Lingbao scriptures both absorbed and reformed the then prevailing Buddhist thought and practices. In essence, the ancient Lingbao scriptures can be defined as “Buddho-Daoist” texts.
Journal Article
Whistleblowing : toward a new theory
When people try to speak up about serious wrongdoing in their organizations, they are often ignored and sometimes punished for their efforts. Society tends to accept the suffering of whistleblowers, who often experience significant retaliation, as more or less normal. This book challenges this acceptance. It explores how the narrative might be changed. Whistleblowing draws on emergent theories in the fields of organization studies and sociology to address the questions of why whistleblowers are frequently ignored and why, if they are acknowledged for speaking up, they are then isolated by colleagues, industry peers, and even loved ones. Kate Kenny offers a new way to understand whistleblowing and the experiences of those involved in it, and explains both how whistleblowers can cope and survive their ordeal and how organizations can change to protect and benefit from whistleblowers.-- Provided by publisher
Book
ANALYSIS OF HEALTH SERVICE RETRIBUTION RATES FOR PRIMARY HEALTHCARE CENTERS IN CIMAHI CITY
ABSTRACTRetribution Tariff of Public Health Center (Puskesmas) in Cimahi City is regulated according to Regulation of Retribution Tariff according to Regulation No. 8 Year 2011. Based on the tariff value from 2011 until now still valid with same tariff. Based on the above, it is necessary to evaluate the tariff compared with the increase of the price of health equipment and the operational cost of other puskesmas supporting the puskesmas service, which increases annually.. The purpose of this research is to analyze the tariff of puskesmas. This research method is qualitative descriptive research. Result of research indicate that tariff of puskesmas service there are several alternatives along with the increase of tools, drugs and raw materials, this becomes the base of tariff policy consideration, with consideration of price increase of puskesmas tariff or addition of health budget subsidy in Cimahi City. Conclusion: Based on the unit cost of indirect cost calculation tariff of public health service Rp 26,973, -. Based on the total cost (total cost) of public health services Rp 62,529, - Based on the comparison of other city tariffs from the mayor regulation of 2011-2012 is Rp 2000, - to Rp 4000, -. Based on the proposals from the Disccusion Focus Group (FGD), several public health centers in Cimahi City, on average, were Rp 8,500. Based on the academic proposal, the average inflation rate (Rp 11,000), ability to pay (Rp 9,475, -) cost (Rp 11,507), generic drug cost (Rp 6,556, -), average proposals of puskesmas (Rp 8,500, -), namely: Rp 11,567, - rounded Rp 11.000, -. Keywords: Analysis, Retribution Tariff of Puskesmas
Journal Article
Perspectives on forgiveness : contrasting approaches to concepts of forgiveness and revenge
\"Demands for forgiveness, even in the face of horrific crimes, were common to the late twentieth century and remain critical aspirations for persons and communities in the early twenty-first century. Research on forgiveness and revenge has nevertheless revealed that many people hold divergent moral and pragmatic beliefs about forgiving, and most survivors express longstanding skepticism about when forgiveness is appropriate and when it is not. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to these issues, the current volume considers the complexities of forgiveness and revenge in the modern world. The chapters address some of the most critical inquiries today: How is forgiveness facilitated or obstructed? What is the role of truth, restitution, reparation or retribution? When is forgiveness without restitution appropriate? Is forgiveness in the true sense of the term even possible? Through empirical, theoretical and literary analyses, this volume addresses the power of revenge and forgiveness in human affairs and offers a unique outlook on the benefits of interdisciplinary discussions for enhancing forgiveness and deterring revenge in multiple aspects of human life\"--Page 4 of cover.
Book
Debunking (the) Retribution (Gap)
Robotization is an increasingly pervasive feature of our lives. Robots with high degrees of autonomy may cause harm, yet in sufficiently complex systems neither the robots nor the human developers may be candidates for moral blame. John Danaher has recently argued that this may lead to a retribution gap, where the human desire for retribution faces a lack of appropriate subjects for retributive blame. The potential social and moral implications of a retribution gap are considerable. I argue that the retributive intuitions that feed into retribution gaps are best understood as deontological intuitions. I apply a debunking argument for deontological intuitions in order to show that retributive intuitions cannot be used to justify retributive punishment in cases of robot harm without clear candidates for blame. The fundamental moral question thus becomes what we ought to do with these retributive intuitions, given that they do not justify retribution. I draw a parallel from recent work on implicit biases to make a case for taking moral responsibility for retributive intuitions. In the same way that we can exert some form of control over our unwanted implicit biases, we can and should do so for unjustified retributive intuitions in cases of robot harm.
Journal Article
The limits of blame : rethinking punishment and responsibility
Faith in the power and righteousness of retribution has taken over the American criminal justice system. Approaching punishment and responsibility from a philosophical perspective, Limits of Blame takes issue with a criminal justice system that aligns legal criteria of guilt with moral criteria of blameworthiness. Many incarcerated people do not meet the criteria of blameworthiness, even when they are guilty of crimes. The author underscores the problems of exaggerating what criminal guilt indicates, particularly when it is tied to the illusion that we know how long and in what ways criminals should suffer. Our practice of assigning blame has gone beyond a pragmatic need for protection and a moral need to repudiate harmful acts publicly. It represents a desire for retribution that normalizes excessive punishment. Kelly proposes that we abandon our culture of blame and aim at reducing serious crime rather than imposing retribution. Were we to refocus our perspective to fit the relevant moral circumstances and legal criteria, we could endorse a humane, appropriately limited, and more productive approach to criminal justice.-- Provided by publisher
Book
To Blame or to Forgive? Reconciling Punishment and Forgiveness in Criminal Justice
What do you do when faced with wrongdoing—do you blame or do you forgive? Especially when confronted with offences that lie on the more severe end of the spectrum and cause terrible psychological or physical trauma or death, nothing can feel more natural than blame. Indeed, in the UK and the USA, increasingly vehement and righteous public expressions of blame and calls for vengeance have become commonplace; correspondingly, contemporary penal philosophy has witnessed a resurgence of the retributive tradition, in the modern form usually known as the 'justice' model. On the other hand, people can and routinely do forgive others, even in cases of severe crime. Evolutionary psychologists argue that both vengeance and forgiveness are universal human adaptations that have evolved as alternative responses to exploitation, and, crucially, strategies for reducing risk of re-offending. We are naturally endowed with both capacities: to blame and retaliate, or to forgive and seek to repair relations. Which should we choose? Drawing on evolutionary psychology, we offer an account of forgiveness and argue that the choice to blame, and not to forgive, is inconsistent with the political values of a broadly liberal society and can be instrumentally counter-productive to reducing the risk of future re-offending. We then sketch the shape of penal philosophy and criminal justice policy and practice with forgiveness in place as a guiding ideal.
Journal Article