| Summary: | <p>My aim in this thesis is to examine whether there are some mitigating factors, i.e. reasons to punish an offender less for his crime than an otherwise similar offender (other than that the offender suffered from mental disorder or disturbance or other forms of irrationality at the time of offence), that are more applicable to socially deprived offenders than to non-socially deprived offenders. I will answer the thesis question through a critical examination of twelve arguments for claiming that there is a mitigating factor that is more applicable to socially deprived offenders, each proposing a different mitigating factor.</p> <p>My conclusions are as follows:</p> <p>(1) Most of the arguments that I examine fail, i.e. they either fail to highlight a genuine mitigating factor, or we do not have much evidence that the mitigating factor highlighted by the argument has a greater applicability to socially deprived offenders than to non-socially deprived offenders.</p> <p>(2) However, one argument, which can be called the <em>no violation of natural duties argument</em>, is successful.</p> <p>(3) Moreover, <em>the improvement of the worst off argument</em>, an argument that is not often discussed in the literature, is particularly noteworthy. If my discussion about that argument is correct, then even if, as I will argue, the mitigating factor highlighted by that argument may not be more applicable to socially deprived offenders than to non-socially deprived offenders, the remaining parts of that argument would still have profound influence on punishment in our unjust societies.</p>
|
|---|