Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T01:06:48.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel's Complete Views on Crime and Punishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

ANDREW KOMASINSKI Open the ORCID record for ANDREW KOMASINSKI [Opens in a new window]
ANDREW KOMASINSKI*
Affiliation:
HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATIONakomasinski@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I argue that Hegel's complete and mature view of crime and punishment is more robust than many interpretations of the Unrecht passage in the ‘Abstract Right’ section of Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right suggest. First, I explain the value of revisiting the interpretation of Hegel as a simple retributionist in the contemporary debate. Then, I look at Hegel's treatment of crime and punishment in the section on abstract right to show the role of punishment in Hegel's account. Next, I argue that this needs to be situated in Hegel's broader social philosophy and that we can accomplish this by looking at how the Unrecht passage fits in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right’s dialectical structure. I do so by building on the sections on civil society and state in the part of Elements of the Philosophy of Right dealing with ethical life (Sittlichkeit), which include considerations of prevention and rehabilitation. I contend that this analysis reveals an account of punishment as more complicated than simple retribution.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , Winter 2018 , pp. 525 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acton, Harry B. (1975) ‘Introduction’. In Hegel, G. W. F., Natural Law: The Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Law, Its Place in Moral Philosophy, and Its Relation to the Positive Science of Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 9–47.Google Scholar
Bedau, Hugo, and Kelly, Erin. (2017) ‘Punishment’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/punishment/.Google Scholar
Brooks, Thom. (2001) ‘Corlett on Kant, Hegel, and Retribution’. Philosophy, 76, 561–80.Google Scholar
Brooks, Thom. (2012) ‘Hegel and the Unified Theory of Punishment’. In Brooks, Thom (ed.), Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 103–23.Google Scholar
Brooks, Thom. (2013) Hegel's Political Philosophy: A Systematic Reading of the Philosophy of Right. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, David E. (1971) ‘Hegel's Theory of Punishment’. In Pelczynski, Z. A. (ed.), Hegel's Political Philosophy: Problems and Perspectives (London: Cambridge University Press), 151–67.Google Scholar
Corlett, J. Angelo. (2001) ‘Making Sense of Retributivism’. Philosophy, 76, 77–110.Google Scholar
Dubber, Markus. (1994) ‘Rediscovering Hegel's Theory of Crime and Punishment’. Michigan Law Review, 92, 1577–1621.Google Scholar
Duff, Anthony, and Hoskins, Zachary. (2017) ‘Legal Punishment’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/.Google Scholar
Farnham, Daniel. (2008) ‘A Hegelian Theory of Retribution’. Journal of Social Philosophy, 39, 606–24.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel. (1974) Doing and Deserving. Essays in the Theory of Responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Foessel, Michaël. (2003) ‘Penser la peine: contrainte et crime dans les principes de la philosophie du droit de Hegel’. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 4, 529–42.Google Scholar
Freyenhagen, Fabian. (2012) ‘The Empty Formalism Objection Revisited: §135R and Recent Kantian Responses’. In Brooks, Thom (ed.), Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 43–72.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1948) The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate. In On Christianity: Early Theological Writings, trans. Knox, T. M. (New York: Harper Torchbook), 182–301.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1975) Natural Law: The Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Law, Its Place in Moral Philosophy, and Its Relation to the Positive Sciences of Law. Translated by Knox, T. M.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Miller, A. V.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1979) System of Ethical Life (1802/3) and First Philosophy of Spirit (Part III of the System of Speculative Philosophy 1803/4). Translated by Harris, Henry Silton and Knox, Thomas Malcolm. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (1991) Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Translated by Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (2012 [1894]) Hegel's Philosophy of Mind [Part Three of The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences]. Translated by William Wallace. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39064/39064-h/39064-h.html.Google Scholar
Heyman, Steven J. (1996) ‘The Legitimacy of Capital Punishment in Hegel's Philosophy of Right: A Comment’. Owl of Minerva, 27, 175–80.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas E. (1997) ‘Kant on Punishment: A Coherent Mix of Deterrence and Retribution’. In Sharon Byrd, B., Hruschka, Joachim, and Joerden, Jan C. (eds.), 200 Jahre Kants ‘Metaphysik Der Sitten’/200th Anniversary of Kant's ‘Metaphysics of Morals’. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), 291–314.Google Scholar
Hutchings, Kimberly. (2012) ‘Hard Work: Hegel and the Meaning of the State in His Philosophy of Right’. In Brooks, Thom (ed.), Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 124–42.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (2006 [1797]) The Metaphysics of Morals. In Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. Gregor, Mary J. (London: Cambridge University Press), 353–604.Google Scholar
Knowles, Dudley. (2002) Hegel and the Philosophy of Right. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McTaggart, J. Ellis. (1896) ‘Hegel's Theory of Punishment’. International Journal of Ethics, 6, 479–502.Google Scholar
Mohr, Georg. (1997) ‘Unrecht Und Strafe’. In Siep, Ludwig (ed.), Grundlinien Der Philosophie Des Rechts (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), 95–124.Google Scholar
Morris, Herbert. (1968) ‘Persons and Punishment’, Monist, 52, 475–501.Google Scholar
Moyar, Dean. (2012) ‘Consequentialism and Deontology in the Philosophy of Right’. In Brooks, Thom (ed.), Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 9–42.Google Scholar
Murphy, Jeffrie G. (1987) ‘Does Kant Have a Theory of Punishment?’ Columbia Law Review, 87, 509–32.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. (2013) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pelczynski, Z. A. (1971) ‘The Hegelian Conception of the State’. In Pelczynski, Z. A. (ed.), Hegel's Political Philosophy: Problems and Perspectives (London: Cambridge University Press), 1–29.Google Scholar
Peperzak, Adriaan Theodoor. (2001) Modern Freedom: Hegel's Legal, Moral, and Political Philosophy. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Plamenatz, John. (1971) ‘History as the Realization of Freedom’. In Pelczynski, Z. A., (ed.), Hegel's Political Philosophy: Problems and Perspectives (London: Cambridge University Press), 30–51.Google Scholar
‘Proper’. (2017) Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/152660?print.Google Scholar
Steinberger, Peter J. (1983) ‘Hegel on Crime and Punishment’. American Political Science Review, 77, 858–70.Google Scholar
Tonry, Michael H. (2011) ‘Introduction: Thinking about Punishment’. In Tonry, Michael H. (ed.), Why Punish? How Much? A Reader on Punishment (New York: Oxford University Press), 3–28.Google Scholar