The October 2021 issue of Criminal Law and Philosophy (15/3) focuses on proportionality, a principle of just punishment that is often neglected by economic models of criminal punishment that focus instead of cost-effective methods of deterrence, especially in light of costly enforcement measures. As special issue editors Douglas Husak and John Hasnas write in their introduction:
The following papers reveal the diversity of scholarly opinion about the principle of proportionality. Several are skeptical that the principle can be defended at all; others are reluctant to abandon the principle but point out many well-known and not-so-well-known difficulties in punishing according to proportionality; and a few make significant efforts to try to resolve some of these problems. We hope and believe that this set of papers represents major progress in understanding the role, if any, that judgments of proportionality should play in a just system of penal sentencing.
This is a fascinating set of papers by an astounding group of scholars, and will surely reward close reading—proportionate to effort, of course!
Douglas Husak, "Proportionality in Personal Life"
Larry Alexander, "Proportionality’s Function"
Mitchell N. Berman, "Proportionality, Constraint, and Culpability"
James Manwaring, "Proportionality’s Lower Bound" (OPEN ACCESS)
Adam J. Kolber, "The End of Liberty"
Youngjae Lee, "Mala Prohibita and Proportionality"
Jesper Ryberg, "Retributivism and the (Lack of) Justification of Proportionality"
Göran Duus-Otterström, "Do Offenders Deserve Proportionate Punishments?" (OPEN ACCESS)
Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, "Punishment, Proportionality, and Aggregation"
Heidi M. Hurd and Michael S. Moore, "The Ethical Implications of Proportioning Punishment to Deontological Desert"