Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.advisorSilveira, Denis Coitinho
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Paulo Vinícius Borges
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-23T15:14:27Z
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-28T18:57:47Z
dc.date.available2023-10-23T15:14:27Z
dc.date.available2024-02-28T18:57:47Z
dc.date.issued2023-07-31
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12032/126571
dc.description.abstractIt is intended to analyze, in this thesis, the reasons for punishing under the prism of retributivism, highlighting its central characteristics and, above all, its gaps, as pointed out by utilitarianism (preventivist), by negative retributivism and by restitutivism. We will study, especially, the thought of Kant, Moore and Kershnar about the theory of punishment, as representatives of retributivism and Bentham, Hart and Boonin, as representatives of utilitarianism, negative retributivism and restitutivism, respectively. To do so, observe the philosophical thinking in the conceptualization of the purpose of punishment and the reasons why it should be punished. The objective is, therefore, to examine the theories of punishment in order to find answers to the questions: what justifies the general practice of punishment? Who can be punished? How can we punish? What are the shortcomings of retributivism? The research is eminently bibliographical, developed from the identification, reading, analysis and interpretation of the writings of consecrated scholars of the theory of punishment. Utilitarianism projects the function of punishment into the future, aiming at preventing new crimes. From another perspective, retributivism, when seeing the penalty as a consequence of the crime, turns its vision to the past, pointing out as its foundation the merit and punishment of the offender. And restitutivism, in which the State must force people who break the law to compensate their victims for the damage they wrongly caused. We will argue that such theories should complement retributivism, given the complexity of the institute of punishment and, thus, the reason for punishing should be constituted in a mixed and balanced system, which includes retribution to the offender for the evil committed, the prevention of new crimes and the restitution for harm caused, taking into account the legal asset protected in the specific case.en
dc.description.sponsorshipNenhumapt_BR
dc.languagept_BRpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinospt_BR
dc.rightsopenAccesspt_BR
dc.subjectCrimept_BR
dc.subjectPunishmenten
dc.titleRazões de punir e as lacunas no retributivismopt_BR
dc.typeTesept_BR


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer
Paulo Vinícius Borges Santos_PROTEGIDO.pdf767.5Kbapplication/pdfVer/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem


© AUSJAL 2022

Asociación de Universidades Confiadas a la Compañía de Jesús en América Latina, AUSJAL
Av. Santa Teresa de Jesús Edif. Cerpe, Piso 2, Oficina AUSJAL Urb.
La Castellana, Chacao (1060) Caracas - Venezuela
Tel/Fax (+58-212)-266-13-41 /(+58-212)-266-85-62

Nuestras redes sociales

facebook Facebook

twitter Twitter

youtube Youtube

Asociaciones Jesuitas en el mundo
Ausjal en el mundo AJCU AUSJAL JESAM JCEP JCS JCAP