Social Deprivation and Mitigation of Punishment
Author
Atlason, Fríði
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2020
Submitted on
2020-06-02
Abstract
This thesis examines whether social deprivation should count as a mitigating factor when determining criminal sentences. It starts from the observation that no jurisdiction explicitly recognizes deprivation as mitigating, while several legal philosophers argue that deprived individuals face criminogenic environments and disproportionate harms such as neglect and abuse, which might warrant reduced punishment. The thesis focuses on three recent accounts: von Hirsch and Ashworth’s compassion-based case for mitigation, Lippke’s claims about chronic temptations to offend and diminished self-control, and Holroyd’s argument from reduced blameworthiness, and it incorporates Peter Chau’s critique of von Hirsch and Ashworth. Methodologically, it presents and critically assesses these arguments against principles of proportionality, blameworthiness, and the state’s legitimate use of coercion. The analysis concludes that the examined positions are unconvincing, including Chau’s objection; however, this conclusion is limited to the arguments considered, and the thesis does not rule out that stronger justifications for treating social deprivation as mitigating may exist or be developed.
Specialet undersøger, om social udsathed bør fungere som en formildende omstændighed ved fastsættelse af straf. Udgangspunktet er, at ingen jurisdiktion direkte anerkender udsathed som strafnedsættende, men at flere retsfilosoffer fremhæver, at udsatte lever under kriminalitetsfremmende vilkår og ofte er ofre for omsorgssvigt og mishandling, hvilket kan tale for mildere reaktioner. Specialet afgrænser sig til tre nyere positioner: von Hirsch og Ashworths medlidenhedsbaserede begrundelse for strafnedsættelse, Lippkes fokus på kroniske fristelser og nedsatte selvkontrolkapaciteter, samt Holroyds tese om reduceret dadelværdighed, og inddrager desuden Peter Chaus kritik af von Hirsch og Ashworth. Metodisk præsenteres og analyseres disse argumenter i lyset af principper om proportionalitet, dadelværdighed og statens legitime brug af tvang. På baggrund af den kritiske gennemgang konkluderes, at de behandlede positioner ikke er overbevisende, herunder Chaus indvending; dog begrænses konklusionen til de analyserede bidrag, og specialet udelukker ikke, at der findes eller kan udvikles mere holdbare argumenter for at anse social udsathed som en formildende faktor.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]