A reflection on the justification of punishment of legal entities from the perspective of normative ethics

The subject of this article is the ability to justify the punishment of a legal entity in the context of the theories of the philosophy of punishment as a branch of normative ethics philosophy. In order to justify the punishment of criminal legal entity, three general categories of theories were analyzed, which include classical and modern retributivism, deterrence and incapacitation. Retributivism theories consider committing a crime as a violation of morals and, depending on the case, punishment equal to or proportional to the crime is justified due to the revival of society's moral order. Deterrence theories are at least divided into two specific and general categories. Specific deterrence considers the purpose of punishment to prevent the criminal from re-offending and general deterrence theories generally justify punishment because it scares potential criminals and prevents them from committing crimes. Finally, according to the theories of incapacitation, the imposition of punishment is justified with the aim of preventing the repetition of crime or strengthening the law obedience and legal awareness of the members of the society. According to the findings of the research, the theories of classical retributivism, specific and general deterrence and crime prevention cannot justify the punishment of legal entities. Among the four justifications presented for punishment in modern retributivism, only according to theory of "punitive feelings of society", the punishment of legal entities seem justified for committing very extreme and dangerous crime.

کلیدواژه ها:

Legal Entities ، Normative Ethics ، Classical retributivism ، Modern retributivism ، deterrence ، Incapiciation