Are There Expressive Constraints on Incarceration?

Wringe, Bill

doi:10.4324/9781315170602-7

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17 On these two aspects of hard treatment in the expression of penal censure, see recently Matravers (2019, 88-89); von Hirsch (2019, 88-89); further Narayan (1993, 175-182). 18 For the different expressivist approaches to punishment's audience, see Wringe (2017aWringe ( , 108-110), (2017b. 19 Duff (2001, 107-109);(1986, 236-238).…”

Section: What Money Can't Saymentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s Really Wrong with Fining Crimes? On the Hard Treatment of Criminal Monetary Fines

Vila

2021

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the advocates of expressive theories of punishment, there is a strong consensus that monetary fines cannot convey the message of censure that is required to punish serious crimes or crimes against the person (e.g., rape). Money is considered an inappropriate symbol to express condemnation. In this article, I argue that this sentiment is correct, although not for the reasons suggested by advocates of expressivism. The monetary day-fine should not be understood as a simple deprivation of money, but as a punishment that reduces the offender’s capacity to consume for a certain period of time. Conceived in this manner, I argue that it is perfectly suitable to convey censure. However, the practical impossibility of ensuring that the person who pays the fine is the same person who has been convicted of the offense seriously undermines the acceptability of the monetary fine as an instrument of censure. Minimizing the risk of the fine’s hard treatment being transferred to third parties is a necessary condition for the monetary fine to be considered a viable alternative to lengthy prison sentences.

show abstract

Section: What Money Can't Saymentioning

confidence: 99%