Justice Is Under Threat in the Risk Society’, Is Barbara Hudson Right to Argue This?
‘Justice is under threat in the risk society’, is Barbara Hudson right to argue this?
In the UK the state advised what it expects of us and in response to this gives us laws that we are not legitimate to disobey. We currently live in a de facto and de jure state where no one else can take part in violence apart from the state when needed, and the laws are seen as just.
From the seventeenth century to the late twentieth century there has been a change in society creating a modernist era which saw the ending of feudalism and the devotement of capitalism. (Hudson, 2003:3) This period saw changes in the way individuals lived their lives and viewed the world; there were political changes and systems of punishment. The changes stirred ‘political, moral and legal philosophy – the fields at whose intersection we find justice.’(Hudson, 2003:3)
This essay will highlight the reasons why Barbara Hudson is right to argue that justice is under threat in the risk society. It will first outline Kant’s and Rawls’s theory of justice and it will then look at what risk society is. Finally it will compare if justice and the risk society are compatible using DSPD as a case study.
Immanuel Kant was an enlightenment philosopher in utilitarian liberalism. He had many theories what justice is and what this means and theories on how this affected punishment. He used the devolvement of enlightenment to search for the measure of justice, whereby humans are seen as rational and capable of analysis and decision making. (Hudson, 2003:5) Previously issues for justice for liberal democracies had been about the distribution of material and social goods. (Hudson, 2003:6) However, for Kant his theory of justice revolved around the idea of individual freedom and equal freedom for all. He believes as we are all rational and capable of making are own decisions that we can all abide by the moral law. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on what he calls the categorical imperative, where he says ‘Always
In the UK the state advised what it expects of us and in response to this gives us laws that we are not legitimate to disobey. We currently live in a de facto and de jure state where no one else can take part in violence apart from the state when needed, and the laws are seen as just.
From the seventeenth century to the late twentieth century there has been a change in society creating a modernist era which saw the ending of feudalism and the devotement of capitalism. (Hudson, 2003:3) This period saw changes in the way individuals lived their lives and viewed the world; there were political changes and systems of punishment. The changes stirred ‘political, moral and legal philosophy – the fields at whose intersection we find justice.’(Hudson, 2003:3)
This essay will highlight the reasons why Barbara Hudson is right to argue that justice is under threat in the risk society. It will first outline Kant’s and Rawls’s theory of justice and it will then look at what risk society is. Finally it will compare if justice and the risk society are compatible using DSPD as a case study.
Immanuel Kant was an enlightenment philosopher in utilitarian liberalism. He had many theories what justice is and what this means and theories on how this affected punishment. He used the devolvement of enlightenment to search for the measure of justice, whereby humans are seen as rational and capable of analysis and decision making. (Hudson, 2003:5) Previously issues for justice for liberal democracies had been about the distribution of material and social goods. (Hudson, 2003:6) However, for Kant his theory of justice revolved around the idea of individual freedom and equal freedom for all. He believes as we are all rational and capable of making are own decisions that we can all abide by the moral law. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on what he calls the categorical imperative, where he says ‘Always
Bibliography: Denney.D (2005) Risk and Society, London, Sage Scott.D (2008) Penology, London, Sage Duff.A, Garland.D (1994) A reader on Punishment, Oxford, Oxford University Press Von Hirsch.A, Ashworth.A, Roberts.J (2009) Principled Sentencing readings on theory and practice, North America, Hart Publishing Kymlicka.W (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press O’Neill.O (2000) Bounds of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Cudworth.E, Hall.T, McGoverm.J (2007) The Modern State, Theories and Ideologies, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press Baggini.J (2005) The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: And Ninety-Nine Other Thought Experiments, London, Granta Publications Adam, Beck, Van Loon, (2000) The Risk Society and Beyond, Critical Issues for Social Theo Ashworth, A, (2010) Sentencing and Criminal Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Pressry, London, Sage Honderich, T (2006) Punishment, London: Pluto Press Hirsch, V (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an analysis of recent research, London: Sage Hudson, B (2003) Justice in the Risk Society, London, Sage Kant.I (1987) The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, New York, Macmillan Publishing Corbett.K, Westwood.T Dangerous and severe personality disorder’: A psychiatric manifestation of the risk society, Critical Public Health,;15(2): 121–133