Intuitions of Punishment
dc.contributor.author | Jones, Owen D. | |
dc.contributor.author | Kurzban, Robert | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-05T18:55:53Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-05-05T18:55:53Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 77 University of Chicago Law Review 1633 (2010) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/17287 | |
dc.description | article published in a law review | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Recent 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.extent | 1 PDF (11 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | University of Chicago Law Review | en_US |
dc.subject | crime | en_US |
dc.subject | punishment | en_US |
dc.subject | core wrongs | en_US |
dc.subject | justice | en_US |
dc.subject | culture | en_US |
dc.subject | evolutionary analysis in law | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | law | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | criminal law | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | evolution | en_US |
dc.title | Intuitions of Punishment | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.ssrn-uri | https://ssrn.com/abstract=1592413 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works
This collection contains scholarly works of the Vanderbilt Law School faculty.