英文摘要 |
This article attempts to reconstruct a theory of the legitimacy of punishment. To this end, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the theory of retribution and the concept of justice, explain and clarify many traditionally neglected issues. The first point of this article is that Aristotle’s theory of justice, the discourse of distributive justice and the justice of offsetting are all different from Kant’s and Hegel’s view of retribution, especially different from Kant’s claim of homomorphic revenge. Therefore, only by reorganizing the differences can we find appropriate meanings for these theories and concepts. This article criticizes Kant’s and Hegel’s thesis on penalty justice. However, the two philosophers have extremely profound thinking about criminal behavior and unlawfulness, which can supplement the deficiencies of justice theory on these issues. Analyzing the structure of justice theory, we can further understand the meaning of the principle of correcting justice and equality. For those who violate the norms of the law through illegal acts, it is a one-sided destruction of the equal status of the members of society living together in the legal order. The way of this kind of behavior is to abuse one’s freedom and cannot be self-disciplined. Therefore, the state intervenes in the role of justice and law enforcement, adjusts the unbalanced legal relationship with other disciplines, and temporarily restricts its freedom according to the damage caused by the illegal act. This punishment also contains the meaning of active general prevention and re-socialization. |