Levin Sergei, Farina Mirko, Lavazza Andrea
National Research University Higher School of Economics, 16 Soyuza Pechatnikov Street, St Petersburg, Russian Federation 190121.
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Universitetskaya St,1, Innopolis, Russian Federation 420500.
Crim Law Philos. 2023;17(1):135-154. doi: 10.1007/s11572-021-09608-2. Epub 2021 Sep 20.
Pereboom and Caruso propose the quarantine model as an alternative to existing models of criminal justice. They appeal to the established public health practice of quarantining people, which is believed to be effective and morally justified, to explain why -in criminal justice- it is also morally acceptable to detain wrongdoers, without assuming the existence of a retrospective moral responsibility. Wrongdoers in their model are treated as carriers of dangerous diseases and as such should be preventively detained (or rehabilitated) until they no longer pose a threat to society. Our main concern in this paper is that Pereboom and Caruso adopt an idiosyncratic meaning of quarantine regulations. We highlight a set of important disanalogies between their quarantine model and the quarantine regulations currently adopted in public health policies. More specifically, we argue that the similarities that Pereboom and Caruso propose to substantiate their analogy are not consistent-despite what they claim-with the regulations underlying quarantine as an epidemiological process. We also notice that certain quarantine procedures adopted in public health systems are inadequate to deal with criminal behaviors. On these grounds, we conclude that Pereboom and Caruso should not appeal to the quarantine analogy to substantiate their view, unless they address the issues and criticism we raise in this paper.
佩雷布姆和卡鲁索提出检疫模式,作为现有刑事司法模式的替代方案。他们诉诸于已确立的对人进行检疫的公共卫生实践,这种实践被认为是有效的且在道德上是合理的,以此来解释为何在刑事司法中,拘留违法者在道德上也是可接受的,而无需假定存在追溯性的道德责任。在他们的模式中,违法者被视为危险疾病的携带者,因此应被预防性拘留(或改造),直到他们不再对社会构成威胁。我们在本文中的主要关注点在于,佩雷布姆和卡鲁索采用了一种特殊的检疫规定含义。我们强调了他们的检疫模式与当前公共卫生政策中采用的检疫规定之间的一系列重要的不同之处。更具体地说,我们认为,尽管佩雷布姆和卡鲁索声称他们提出的相似之处能证实他们的类比,但这些相似之处与作为一种流行病学过程的检疫所依据的规定并不一致。我们还注意到,公共卫生系统中采用的某些检疫程序不足以应对犯罪行为。基于这些理由,我们得出结论,除非佩雷布姆和卡鲁索解决我们在本文中提出的问题和批评,否则他们不应诉诸检疫类比来证实他们的观点。