My thought as well. He even adds more or less this exact statement as a third tenet of his own moral code:
"that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers."
Up until that statement, family punishment would be incredibly effective for extreme cases under retributivism as well. Mass murderer who is at peace with the prospect of torture, death, and or life imprisonment? Gotta go after their family to reap that sweet sweet revenge.
It seems like any moral system of punishment that omits a strict prohibition on punishing the innocent is just begging for abuses and depravity down the line (if not right off the bat). Are there realistically any consequentialists out there who have spent serious time thinking about moral systems of criminal justice that omit this strict rule against punishing the innocent? If not, what exactly is the author arguing other than their own convenient straw man? A strawman that they have only just barely sidestepped themselves via an explicit carve-out, while implying consequentialists would somehow have a terribly difficult time doing same.
"that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers."
Up until that statement, family punishment would be incredibly effective for extreme cases under retributivism as well. Mass murderer who is at peace with the prospect of torture, death, and or life imprisonment? Gotta go after their family to reap that sweet sweet revenge.
It seems like any moral system of punishment that omits a strict prohibition on punishing the innocent is just begging for abuses and depravity down the line (if not right off the bat). Are there realistically any consequentialists out there who have spent serious time thinking about moral systems of criminal justice that omit this strict rule against punishing the innocent? If not, what exactly is the author arguing other than their own convenient straw man? A strawman that they have only just barely sidestepped themselves via an explicit carve-out, while implying consequentialists would somehow have a terribly difficult time doing same.