Abstract
Erik Luna in his contribution to this Symposium has provided us with a critique of mainstream theories of punishment that is without exception. He laments the endless trench warfare between proponents of these different positions and advocates a theoretical synthesis that is procedural.' I agree there is much to be synthesized, and there is particular virtue in synthesizing explanatory and normative theories. But one of the reasons there is virtue in such synthesis is that it enables us to see that some normative theories may be coherent in some possible world, but not in any empirically plausible world. Obversely, explanatory theories of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation can motivate ugly practices unless they are regulated by normative theories. Hence, part of the rationale for synthesis is to confront incompatibilities, and the contributions to this Symposium certainly draw out some important ones.
Recommended Citation
Braithwaite, John
(2003)
"Holism, Justice, and Atonement,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2003:
No.
1, Article 13.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2003/iss1/13