형벌의 철학적 기초 - 영미 형벌 정당화이론의 동향 -

How, if at all, the state is morally justified in subjecting an individual to criminal punishment? There are so many answers to the question. Although theorists have proposed and defended a staggering variety of punishment theories designed to meet this justificatory challenge, it is conventional to group them into two camps: retributivism and utilitarianism. However, new trends of punishment theories have appeared in the USA and UK last half century. The overall trend in theory is clear. After the mid-1960s utilitarian theories of punishment entered a long and steep decline. Crowding out utilitarian theories were modified retributive theories or hybrid punishment theories. We now seem to have enough theories of punishment. What we need is the analysis and evaluation of existing theories rather than the suggestion of another punishment theory. So, we seem to need a canonical statement of explicit criteria of adequacy. At a minimum, a theory of punishment should explain: 1) Why establishing an institution of punishment is morally permissible; 2) Why we should maintain such an institution?; 3) What implications the theory has for practice?; 4) How the theory helps us to resolve various questions of punishment?What justifies criminal punishments? The philosophy of criminal law is necessary to answer to the question. In sum, the criminal law needs philosophical analysis and reflection. The philosophy of criminal law is a rich and varied domain of legal philosophy. As a legal philosopher, I dream a renaissance of philosophy of criminal law.