Sentencing theory - Revision history

ArchiveBot: Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:26:35Z

Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:26, 16 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/~~rothbard~~/~~newlibertywhole.asp~~\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=https://mises.freecapitalists.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>		'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/books/for-a-new-liberty-the-libertarian-manifesto/\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=https://mises.freecapitalists.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

ArchiveBot: Repoint 3 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:22:58Z

Repoint 3 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 16 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	==Public good==		==Public good==
	Deterrence and incapacitation are sometimes described as [[public good]]s since they are [[indivisible]] and [[nonexcludable]]. [[John Hasnas]] argues that like [[lighthouse]]s, [[television]], and [[internet]], crime prevention can be supplied non-politically.<ref>{{cite web\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/scholar/hasnas~~.pdf~~\|title=The Obviousness of Anarchy\|author=Hasnas, John}}</ref>		Deterrence and incapacitation are sometimes described as [[public good]]s since they are [[indivisible]] and [[nonexcludable]]. [[John Hasnas]] argues that like [[lighthouse]]s, [[television]], and [[internet]], crime prevention can be supplied non-politically.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/journals/scholar/hasnas/\|title=The Obviousness of Anarchy\|author=Hasnas, John}}</ref>

	==Optimal crime rate==		==Optimal crime rate==
	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that "The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit analysis]] is prescribed. [[Laurent Carnis]] notes that the classical school of crime "searches for the optimal number of crimes for society (Becker 1968; Ehrlich, 1996). This optimal number is reached when the government authorities have minimized the social cost: the [[marginal cost]] equals the [[marginal revenue]]. It is supposed that the marginal cost for society of suffering the crime is the same as the cost to avoid it. For this optimal level of crime, the authorities, on behalf of society, define a level of tolerance. Society must tolerate this amount of crime to avoid waste."<ref>{{cite journal\|title=Pitfalls of the Classical School of Crime\|author=Carnis, Laurent\|journal=Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics\|volume=7\|number=4\|date=Winter 2004\|pages=7-18\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/qjae/~~pdf~~/~~qjae7_4_2.pdf~~}}</ref>		[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that "The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit analysis]] is prescribed. [[Laurent Carnis]] notes that the classical school of crime "searches for the optimal number of crimes for society (Becker 1968; Ehrlich, 1996). This optimal number is reached when the government authorities have minimized the social cost: the [[marginal cost]] equals the [[marginal revenue]]. It is supposed that the marginal cost for society of suffering the crime is the same as the cost to avoid it. For this optimal level of crime, the authorities, on behalf of society, define a level of tolerance. Society must tolerate this amount of crime to avoid waste."<ref>{{cite journal\|title=Pitfalls of the Classical School of Crime\|author=Carnis, Laurent\|journal=Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics\|volume=7\|number=4\|date=Winter 2004\|pages=7-18\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/journals/qjae/qjae7-4-2/}}</ref>

	Neoclassical theory holds that losses from crime will be perceived differently among social and economic groups within any society. Therefore, it is up to the political process to determine how the interests of various groups will be reconciled or which groups will be able to impose their will on the rest of society.<ref>{{cite journal\|title=Two Irreconcilable Theories of Justice: Social Engineering vs. Ethics of Property\|date=2011\|volume=22\|pages=399-436\|author=Carnis, Laurent\|journal=Journal of Libertarian Studies\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/jls/~~22_1~~/~~22_1_20.pdf~~}}</ref> [[Libertarian]] theory holds that in a free market, people would voluntarily decide what resources should be allocated to crime prevention, and that the resulting allocation would more closely approximate what is optimal for maximizing [[utility]].		Neoclassical theory holds that losses from crime will be perceived differently among social and economic groups within any society. Therefore, it is up to the political process to determine how the interests of various groups will be reconciled or which groups will be able to impose their will on the rest of society.<ref>{{cite journal\|title=Two Irreconcilable Theories of Justice: Social Engineering vs. Ethics of Property\|date=2011\|volume=22\|pages=399-436\|author=Carnis, Laurent\|journal=Journal of Libertarian Studies\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/journals/jls/22-1-20/}}</ref> [[Libertarian]] theory holds that in a free market, people would voluntarily decide what resources should be allocated to crime prevention, and that the resulting allocation would more closely approximate what is optimal for maximizing [[utility]].

	===Practices of governmental judicial systems===		===Practices of governmental judicial systems===

ArchiveBot: Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:09:40Z

Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 16 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=~~http~~://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>		'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=https://mises.freecapitalists.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

FormerContributor-78162cb3: public good

2014-01-26T23:32:53Z

public good

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 26 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>		'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

			==Public good==
			Deterrence and incapacitation are sometimes described as [[public good]]s since they are [[indivisible]] and [[nonexcludable]]. [[John Hasnas]] argues that like [[lighthouse]]s, [[television]], and [[internet]], crime prevention can be supplied non-politically.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf\|title=The Obviousness of Anarchy\|author=Hasnas, John}}</ref>

	==Optimal crime rate==		==Optimal crime rate==

FormerContributor-78162cb3: Leucosticte moved page Sentencing to Sentencing theory

2014-01-26T22:49:59Z

Leucosticte moved page Sentencing to Sentencing theory

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:49, 26 January 2014
(No difference)

FormerContributor-78162cb3: expand

2014-01-26T22:49:48Z

expand

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 26 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sentencing''' is the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>		'''Sentencing theory''' is the philosophy governing the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]] after he has been apprehended and it has been proven that he committed the [[crime]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>{{cite book\|url=http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp\|chapter=The Courts\|author=Rothbard, Murray\|date=1973\|title=For a New Liberty}}</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit analysis]] is prescribed.		==Optimal crime rate==
			[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that "The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit analysis]] is prescribed. [[Laurent Carnis]] notes that the classical school of crime "searches for the optimal number of crimes for society (Becker 1968; Ehrlich, 1996). This optimal number is reached when the government authorities have minimized the social cost: the [[marginal cost]] equals the [[marginal revenue]]. It is supposed that the marginal cost for society of suffering the crime is the same as the cost to avoid it. For this optimal level of crime, the authorities, on behalf of society, define a level of tolerance. Society must tolerate this amount of crime to avoid waste."<ref>{{cite journal\|title=Pitfalls of the Classical School of Crime\|author=Carnis, Laurent\|journal=Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics\|volume=7\|number=4\|date=Winter 2004\|pages=7-18\|url=http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_2.pdf}}</ref>

	In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court ~~states~~ that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.		Neoclassical theory holds that losses from crime will be perceived differently among social and economic groups within any society. Therefore, it is up to the political process to determine how the interests of various groups will be reconciled or which groups will be able to impose their will on the rest of society.<ref>{{cite journal\|title=Two Irreconcilable Theories of Justice: Social Engineering vs. Ethics of Property\|date=2011\|volume=22\|pages=399-436\|author=Carnis, Laurent\|journal=Journal of Libertarian Studies\|url=http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_20.pdf}}</ref> [[Libertarian]] theory holds that in a free market, people would voluntarily decide what resources should be allocated to crime prevention, and that the resulting allocation would more closely approximate what is optimal for maximizing [[utility]].

			===Practices of governmental judicial systems===
			In governmental judicial systems, it is deemed important for the courts to at least pay lip service to the parsimony provision. In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the appellate court stated that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the district court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.

	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}

	[[Category:~~Concepts~~]]		[[Category:Sentencing theory]]

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 15:24, 14 January 2014

2014-01-14T15:24:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 14 January 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit]] ~~analysis~~ is prescribed.		[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit analysis]] is prescribed.

	In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.		In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 15:24, 14 January 2014

2014-01-14T15:24:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 14 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''~~Punishment~~''' ~~refers to~~ the ~~sanctions that may~~ be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held [[property]]. ~~Punishment~~ theories include [[retribution]], [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to involuntary servitude to that degree."<ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>		'''Sentencing''' is the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in ~~punishment~~, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.		[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit]] analysis is prescribed.

			In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.

	==References==		==References==

FormerContributor-78162cb3: Leucosticte moved page Punishment to Sentencing over redirect

2014-01-14T15:10:42Z

Leucosticte moved page Punishment to Sentencing over redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:10, 14 January 2014
(No difference)

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 11:25, 9 January 2014

2014-01-09T11:25:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:25, 9 January 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in punishment, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006, the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.		[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in punishment, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.

	==References==		==References==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 14 January 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit]] ~~analysis~~ is prescribed.		[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit analysis]] is prescribed.

	In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.		In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 14 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''~~Punishment~~''' ~~refers to~~ the ~~sanctions that may~~ be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held [[property]]. ~~Punishment~~ theories include [[retribution]], [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to involuntary servitude to that degree."<ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>		'''Sentencing''' is the determination of what response should be taken against an [[Aggression\|aggressor]] of justly held life, [[liberty]] or [[property]]. Sentencing theories include [[retribution]] (punishment), [[restitution]], [[deterrence]], and [[rehabilitation]]. In practice (and in theory) law has a tendency to implement a mixture of several or all of the theories. According to [[Murray Rothbard]], "The libertarian believes that a criminal loses his rights to the extent that he has aggressed upon the rights of another, and therefore that it is permissible to incarcerate the convicted criminal and subject him to [[involuntary servitude]] to that degree."<ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp</ref> [[Ludwig von Mises]] writes:<ref>{{cite book\|title=Liberalism\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp\|chapter=The State and Antisocial Conduct\|date=1927}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}		{{cquote\|[[Liberalism]] neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob.}}

	[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in ~~punishment~~, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.		[[Economic calculation]] problems arise in sentencing, as with other government services. The "parsimony provision" of {{usc\|18\|3553}} provides, for instance, that " The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes" of sentencing. The parsimony provision does not specify ''how much'' deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation courts should strive to impose a sentence that is sufficient to provide. No [[cost-benefit]] analysis is prescribed.

			In ''Ministro-Tapia'', No. 05-5101 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006), the court states that "if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher." In ''U.S. v. Rosa'', the court was reversed after it stated that the sentence it was imposing was harsher than necessary.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2007/04/ca2_the_parsimo.html\|title=CA2: The Parsimony Provision Does Matter, After All\|date=11 April 2007\|publisher=Appellate Law and Practice}}</ref> The upshot of this is that courts will have to be careful not to explicitly make such statements.

	==References==		==References==