Colpa o rischio?: Sulla coesistenza di due princìpi e sulla loro difficile legittimazione morale
This article aims to highlight the «eternal» character of the arguments put forward in favor or against the moral legitimacy of penal sanctions. Contemporary dis-cussions tend to replace the criterion of guilt with that of the risk of recidivism and, in doing so, impose a paradigm shift on the entir...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Recurso Electrónico Artigo |
| Idioma: | Italiano |
| Verificar disponibilidade: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publicado em: |
2013
|
| Em: |
Annali di studi religiosi
Ano: 2013, Volume: 14, Páginas: 81-97 |
| Acesso em linha: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Resumo: | This article aims to highlight the «eternal» character of the arguments put forward in favor or against the moral legitimacy of penal sanctions. Contemporary dis-cussions tend to replace the criterion of guilt with that of the risk of recidivism and, in doing so, impose a paradigm shift on the entire judicial system. It is argued that, from a moral point of view, this paradigm shift has clear limits. Moreover, the undifferentiated use of the criterion of «dangerousness» in the context of penal sanctions is shown to be highly problematic also when considered from a theological perspective. The article argues for an intermediate position. On the one hand, significance is conceded to the category of dangerousness; on the other hand, it is insisted that this significance must be thought of as constrained by the rules of a law that respects the fundamental rights of every person. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2284-3892 |
| Obras secundárias: | Enthalten in: Annali di studi religiosi
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.14598/Annali_studi_relig_14201306 |
