In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

138 BOOK REVIEWS synthesis, comparable in its range and quality to that offered by Thomas in his own time. The thinking surveyed in this book will play its part in such an undertaking, and indeed, so may the book itself (not least in the highly original essay in [historically referenced] speculative theology offered by the American Jesuit Stephen Fields). There can be no perfect unification of Catholic theology till the Parousia. But before then there can and should be imperfect attempts ad utilitatem nostram totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae. AIDAN NICHOLS Blackfriars Cambridge, Great Britain Thomas Aquinas and the Philosophy of Punishment. By PETER KARL KORITANSKY. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Pp. 209. $25.00 (paper). ISBN: 978-08132 -1883-0. In Thomas Aquinas and the Philosophy of Punishment, Peter Karl Koritansky places the thought of Aquinas within the context of modern theories of punishment, each of which Koritansky finds inadequate. The two main schools of thought concerning punishment correspond to utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism, the topic of examination in chapter 1, justifies punishment entirely in terms of its consequences, namely, its deterrent and medicinal effects; there is no sense that the person “deserves” the punishment or that things are being set right by way of the punishment. Utilitarianism is entirely forward-looking: what good will be brought about by this punishment? In particular, punishment aims to effect a reduction in criminal behavior by causing fear of punishment. According to the principle of utility, then, the punishment must be severe enough to prohibit future crimes; at the same time, it must not be so severe as to cause unnecessary suffering. Utilitarianism, then, is concerned with the effectiveness of punishment; it places no stock in whether the punishment is deserved or not. Punishment thus becomes unhinged from justice since we can punish someone even if he is innocent, as long as it will bring about more good. To remedy this glaring defect, certain modern utilitarians, such as H. L. A. Hart, have tried to cut-and-paste dessert into the overall theory: a condition is simply added to the theory, namely, that no one can be punished who has not committed a crime. Ultimately, Koritansky argues, this attempted remedy is unsuccessful. One cannot use dessert to limit punishment without thereby recognizing dessert as a legitimate principle, a principle which has no motivating force within utilitarianism. Hart’s attempt to mix oil and water is doomed to failure. Chapter 2 examines deontological theories of punishment which may be described as “modern retributivism,” a kind of outgrowth of Kantian BOOK REVIEWS 139 retributivism. Kant emphatically rejects deterrence as the sole motive for punishment since no person, even the criminal, can be used as a means to an end. Rather than deterrence, punishment should always seek to give the criminal his just desserts; Kant will advocate strict adherence to “an eye for an eye.” The most viable modern retributivist view is the “unfair advantage” theory, first introduced by Herbert Morris. It presupposes liberal political theory, in which society is a cooperative venture between individuals seeking mutual benefit. Each individual must assume a fair share of burdens in exchange for the benefits found in society; in particular, he must restrain his desires and actions, so as not to interfere with others. A criminal is precisely someone who refuses to take on his share of burdens; he seeks to gain an unfair advantage over others. What is the nature of this unfair advantage? The failure to answer this question, thinks Koritansky , is the greatest weakness of the unfair advantage theory. The unfair advantage is not any material benefit, but seems to be the liberty to act as one pleases. How this liberty is some kind of gain never becomes clear. The treatment of Aquinas’s view begins in chapter 3 with his general ethical and political theory. Aquinas’s view is similar to utilitarianism in that it is teleological, that is, actions are evaluated by their relationship to an end. Ultimately, however, it cannot be classed with utilitarianism. Aquinas, for instance, emphasizes the importance of moral absolutes, which find no place within utilitarianism. Koritansky spends some time showing the importance of natural...

pdf

Share