Review by Choice Review
In Western societies, recidivist criminals often are punished more harshly than first offenders. The justification for this "recidivist premium" poses a philosophical problem. According to jurist scholars and legal officers, when one violates the law more than once, society is justified in meting out a harsher penalty. The philosophical grounds seem to be at odds with this justification; one may justify the recidivist premium on retributive, deterrent, or communicative grounds. The problem with retribution is how to justify harsher punishment for a second crime when an individual has paid the price for the first crime. The problem with deterrence is familiar: how to prove the deterrent value of the recidivist premium or to predict which criminals are likely to recidivate. A recent communicative justification suggests that harsher punishments reflect a comment on the disregard for the criticism that the first punishment was meant to impart. This volume offers contributions by American and European philosophers, political theorists, and criminologists, selected to present both support and criticism for each philosophical justification of the recidivist premium. The arguments' sophistication and balance make this book a valuable contribution to the field. Summing Up: Recommended. Advanced graduate students and researchers/faculty. R. C. Robinson University of Georgia
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
