Nicolas Nayfeld

This book advances a new interpretation of Hart's penal philosophy. Positioning itself in opposition to current interpretations, the book argues that Hart does not defend a mixed theory of punishment, nor a rule-utilitarian theory of punishment, nor a liberal form of utilitarianism, nor a goal and constraint approach. Rather, it is argued, his penal philosophy is based on his moral pluralism, which comprises two aspects: value pluralism and pluralism with respect to forms of moral reason. It is held that this means, on the one hand, that criminal law has an irreducible complexity due to the compromises it makes to accommodate competing values, and on the other hand, that there need not be one single justification of punishment. This original interpretation is not based only on Hart's key volume on the subject Punishment and Responsibility, but on a careful reading of his complete works. The book will be a valuable resource for academics and researchers interested in Hart's philosophy, the philosophy of law and criminal law.

This article starts from a paradox and aims to solve it. On the one hand, although Drug Courts (DCs) are one of the most interesting penal innovations in recent years, running counter to the dominant retributive approach and the rival approach based on deterrence, they have surprisingly not attracted the attention of philosophers and therefore lack a solid philosophical foundation. On the other hand, although Pickard's ‘responsibility without blame’ approach looks very convincing on paper, its practical applications remain unclear outside the clinical context. I argue that Pickard's approach is the theoretical framework that DCs need and that they are a compelling application of it: DCs do ascribe to participants various forms of responsibility (criminal ‘liability-responsibility’, responsibility of choice, responsibility for progress or failure, responsibility as answerability, tort liability) while striving to keep ‘affective blame’ at bay in order to help them regain their autonomy. However, I argue that some of the limitations of both this approach and DCs become apparent once we consider the ‘outer limits’ of DCs, in other words those who are terminated from DCs and those who refuse to enter DCs in the first place.

I argue that penal philosophy should focus more on our attitudes towards offenders, since these attitudes can shed new light on theories or principles of punishment (of which they are often expressions) and also play a significant role in changing the face of criminal justice. Building on Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment,” I define attitudes as certain ways of seeing human beings that logically include or exclude various emotional, behavioral, and linguistic responses, that can be more or less natural, and over which we have some degree of voluntary control. I argue that, understood in this sense, there are broadly speaking six attitudes towards offenders: the retributive, the hostile, the moralistic, the paternalistic, the merciful, and the actuarial. After presenting each of these attitudes, I sum up my analysis by focusing on the Polanski sexual abuse case. I then introduce the concept of second-order attitudes, where egalitarianism is the attitude that consists of taking the same attitude towards all offenders, and particularism is the attitude that consists of adjusting your attitude to each offender. Finally, I briefly explain why a mix of the retributive and the merciful should be our default attitude.

Cet article porte sur le déterminisme compatibiliste de Kazimierz Twardowski. Dans un premier temps, j’explique ce qu’est le déterminisme selon Twardowski et pourquoi il s’agit d’après lui d’une position plus probable que l’indéterminisme. Dans un deuxième temps, je présente son analyse du concept d’imputation [poczytywanie] – très proche de ce qu’on appelle en philosophie pénale la character theory of excuses – qui lui permet de concilier déterminisme et imputation. Cette analyse pose qu’un acte ne peut être imputé (à faute ou à mérite) que s’il émane du caractère de l’agent. Dans un troisième temps, j’expose son analyse du concept de responsabilité. Dans un dernier temps, je montre que Twardowski penche vers l’incompatibilisme lorsqu’il est question du remords ou du sentiment de responsabilité, mais qu’il ne pense pas que cela doive nous conduire au scepticisme éthique. Cet article comporte en annexe une traduction d’une publication synthétique de Twardowski sur ce sujet.

Cet article porte sur le déterminisme compatibiliste de Kazimierz Twardowski. Dans un premier temps, j’explique ce qu’est le déterminisme selon Twardowski et pourquoi il s’agit d’après lui d’une position plus probable que l’indéterminisme. Dans un deuxième temps, je présente son analyse du concept d’imputation [poczytywanie] – très proche de ce qu’on appelle en philosophie pénale la character theory of excuses – qui lui permet de concilier déterminisme et imputation. Cette analyse pose qu’un acte ne peut être imputé que s’il émane du caractère de l’agent. Dans un troisième temps, j’expose son analyse du concept de responsabilité. Dans un dernier temps, je montre que Twardowski penche vers l’incompatibilisme lorsqu’il est question du remords ou du sentiment de responsabilité, mais qu’il ne pense pas que cela doive nous conduire au scepticisme éthique. Cet article comporte en annexe une traduction d’une publication synthétique de Twardowski sur ce sujet.

Dans cet article, nous essayons de trouver une définition qui puisse s’appliquer à toutes les peines d’emprisonnement en prenant pour fil conducteur les caractéristiques saillantes d’une peine d’emprisonnement typique aujourd’hui en France. Nous critiquons la définition courante en termes de privation de liberté et nous soutenons que l’emprisonnement pénal se compose universellement d’au moins quatre ingrédients : l’enfermement, l’infraction, le tribunal et la réprobation. Nous expliquons en quoi cette définition peut nous aider à distinguer la peine d’emprisonnement d’autres formes d’enfermement tout en soulignant qu’elle ne supprime pas l’existence de cas limites.

In this article, I return to the origins of J. Glover’s chapter on the death penalty in Causing Death and Saving Lives, that is, a 1957 article by Hart, “Murder and the Principles of Punishment: England and the United States.” In this article, Hart defends, like Glover, the abolition of the death penalty by relying on a utilitarian strategy consisting in, inter alia, reversing the burden of proof: as long as we do not have the proof that the death sentence can save more lives than prison, we will not be allowed to use it, since it is prima facie a greater evil than prison. In fact, it causes greater harm, is more expensive and is not remissible. More than fifty years after the publication of this article, we still have no proof of a greater effectiveness of the death penalty. Some studies even suggest that the death penalty could be harmful and have a brutalizing effect. Throughout my article, I explore the strengths and weaknesses of the utilitarian approach to criminal sanctions, which I oppose, following Hart and Glover, with two other approaches: the pacifist approach and the retributive approach.

In this article, I return to the origins of J. Glover’s chapter on the death penalty in Causing Death and Saving Lives, that is, a 1957 article by Hart, “Murder and the Principles of Punishment: England and the United States.” In this article, Hart defends, like Glover, the abolition of the death penalty by relying on a utilitarian strategy consisting in, inter alia, reversing the burden of proof: as long as we do not have the proof that the death sentence can save more lives than prison, we will not be allowed to use it, since it is prima facie a greater evil than prison. In fact, it causes greater harm, is more expensive and is not remissible. More than fifty years after the publication of this article, we still have no proof of a greater effectiveness of the death penalty. Some studies even suggest that the death penalty could be harmful and have a brutalizing effect. Throughout my article, I explore the strengths and weaknesses of the utilitarian approach to criminal sanctions, which I oppose, following Hart and Glover, with two other approaches: the pacifist approach and the retributive approach.