Show simple item record

Intuitions of Punishment

dc.contributor.authorJones, Owen D.
dc.contributor.authorKurzban, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-05T18:55:53Z
dc.date.available2022-05-05T18:55:53Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citation77 University of Chicago Law Review 1633 (2010)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/17287
dc.descriptionarticle published in a law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractRecent work reveals, contrary to wide-spread assumptions, remarkably high levels of agreement about how to rank order, by blameworthiness, wrongs that involve physical harms, takings of property, or deception in exchanges. In The Origins of Shared Intuitions of Justice (http://ssrn.com/abstract=952726) we proposed a new explanation for these unexpectedly high levels of agreement. Elsewhere in this issue, Professors Braman, Kahan, and Hoffman offer a critique of our views, to which we reply here. Our reply clarifies a number of important issues, such as the interconnected roles that culture, variation, and evolutionary processes play in generating intuitions of punishment.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (11 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Chicago Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectcrimeen_US
dc.subjectpunishmenten_US
dc.subjectcore wrongsen_US
dc.subjectjusticeen_US
dc.subjectcultureen_US
dc.subjectevolutionary analysis in lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshlawen_US
dc.subject.lcshcriminal lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshevolutionen_US
dc.titleIntuitions of Punishmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttps://ssrn.com/abstract=1592413


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record