Peculiarly Criminal: Resolving the prudential deterrence problem

This article contributes to the debate in the philosophy of law over the justification of punishment. It focusses on the ‘communicative’ theory of punishment as articulated by Antony Duff in his chapter of the recently published Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Punishment (2024). In the chapter Duff elaborates his theory and proposes that the ‘prudential deterrence’ problem is the most serious objection to it. In this article I propose a novel solution to the problem. I argue that the problem arises from Duff’s failure to properly outline the role of his theory in relation to the different kinds of law (principally criminal and non-criminal). Accordingly, I clarify this relation by suggesting that the communicative theory ought to be designated as what justifies the criminal law in particular, while the considerations raised by the prudential deterrence problem are what defines the law apart from particular criminal or non-criminal considerations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Groundings :
Published
2026-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36399/groundingsug.16.433
Primary Topic
Free Will and Agency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Peculiarly Criminal: Resolving the prudential deterrence problem

James A. Farrow
Groundings :
Free Will and Agency
article

Peculiarly Criminal: Resolving the prudential deterrence problem

James A. Farrow
article en

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate in the philosophy of law over the justification of punishment. It focusses on the ‘communicative’ theory of punishment as articulated by Antony Duff in his chapter of the recently published Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Punishment (2024). In the chapter Duff elaborates his theory and proposes that the ‘prudential deterrence’ problem is the most serious objection to it. In this article I propose a novel solution to the problem. I argue that the problem arises from Duff’s failure to properly outline the role of his theory in relation to the different kinds of law (principally criminal and non-criminal). Accordingly, I clarify this relation by suggesting that the communicative theory ought to be designated as what justifies the criminal law in particular, while the considerations raised by the prudential deterrence problem are what defines the law apart from particular criminal or non-criminal considerations.

Groundings :Vol. 16
University of Glasgow (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Free Will and Agency
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.