Peter Chau on Punishment and Bad Upbringing (Criminal Justice Ethics)

"Punishment and Bad Upbringing"
Peter Chau
Criminal Justice Ethics
July 2018, Vol 37, Issue 2, pp 103-121

Abstract: This article examines whether bad upbringing (or what is sometimes called a “rotten social background”) affects just or deserved punishment. There are two possible rationales for this claim. First, it may be argued that an offender’s blameworthiness for his choice to offend is reduced if he had a bad upbringing; second, it may be argued that fairness requires us to impose a less severe punitive burden on an offender with a bad upbringing, even if he is no less blameworthy for his crime. The article rejects both of these rationales.

Peter Chau on Hoskin's New Benefit-Fairness Theory of Punishment (Crim L & Philosophy)

"Hoskins’s New Benefit-Fairness Theory of Punishment"
Peter Chau
Criminal Law and Philosophy

published online, 17 Mar 12018, pp. 1-13

Abstract: The benefit-fairness theory of punishment (sometimes referred to simply as the “fairness” theory of punishment), which is one of the most prominent retributive justifications of punishment, appeals to some benefits received by an offender in explaining why it is fair to impose punitive burdens on him. However, many see the two traditional versions of the theory, found in the works by writers such as Herbert Morris, Jeffrie Murphy, and George Sher, as being susceptible to fatal objections. In a recent paper, “Fairness, Political Obligation, and Punishment,” Zachary Hoskins offers a new version of the benefit-fairness theory of punishment. I will highlight his original contribution by showing how his version of the benefit-fairness theory of punishment is different from the traditional versions in such a way that the main objections applying to the traditional versions do not apply to his account. Nonetheless, despite its many virtues, I will argue that Hoskins’s theory fails because it would entail disproportionate punishment.

Peter Chau Critiques Loss-Based Retributive Justifications of Punishment (OJLS)

"Loss-Based Retributive Justifications of Punishment"
Peter Chau
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
May 2017, Advance Article

Abstract: Retributive justifications of punishment that focus on the gain of offenders, like those offered by Herbert Morris and Jeffrie Murphy, have been subjected to sustained and persuasive criticism. Three authors (Daniel McDermott, Richard Lippke and Göran Duus-Otterström) have, in their fairly recent works, offered retributive justifications of punishment that focus instead on the loss suffered by victims. I will argue that these loss-based justifications, despite their ingenuity, suffer from serious defects.

Sentencing in Hong Kong (new book chapter)

"Sentencing"
Simon NM Young
in Eric WH Chui & T Wing Lo (eds), Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong, 2nd Edition
Sept 2016, Routledge, 400 pp

Abstract: Constitutional norms, statutory rules and common law principles govern the art and science of sentencing in Hong Kong. Death penalty and corporal punishments are sentencing measures of the past. As reflected in a 2014 law reform report on suspended sentences, the emphasis now is on discretionary sentencing, although murder still carries a mandatory life imprisonment. Hong Kong courts have a full range of sentencing options to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and offender. Sentencing decisions are informed by traditional purposes of punishment including public protection, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation and reparation for victims. The purpose of denunciation has been cited by judges more frequently in recent years. Restorative justice, however, is not commonly referred to. Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal provides guideline sentences for specific offences; such guidelines assist courts in setting the starting point sentence in a particular case. Aggravating and mitigating factors serve respectively to move the sentence marker up and down. While proportionality is an applied constitutional principle of sentencing, courts still enhance sentences in cases of prevalent organised crime and routinely give sentencing discounts on pleas of guilty or for assistance given to the authorities.  Click here to download the chapter.

New Funding for Two HKU Law Knowledge Exchange Impact Projects 2016-2017

Congratulations to Benny Tai and Amanda Whitfort who were awarded HKU Knowledge Exchange Impact Project Funding 2016-2017.  Each were awarded approximately HKD100,000.  Tai's project, "Post-exam Rule of Law Seminars in Secondary Schools", is part of the Faculty of Law's Rule of Law Education Project which started in 2012 and was recently awarded the Faculty Knowledge Exchange Award 2016.  HKU law students serve as interns to the Project and will conduct school visits and lessons to up to 2,000 secondary school students at 10 to 12 schools.  Whitfort's project, "Wildlife Crime: Knowledge Transfer for Informed Sentencing", aims to develop and provide resources (e.g. dossiers and workshops) to those prosecuting wildlife crime to improve their capacity to inform and assist the court in these cases.

    The Faculty of Law recently published a booklet titled, Knowledge Exchange and Impact 2016.  It profiles 11 case studies and 22 colleagues whose research has had impact in the local and overseas community. The impact has been in the areas of human rights, community legal information, judicial studies, children's issues, animal welfare, competition law, clinical legal education, financial technologies, rule of law education, political reform and actuarial assessment of damages for personal injuries.  In my opening message as Associate Dean (Research), I wrote

"Knowledge exchange (KE) is the sharing of knowledge with non-academic communities to realise meaningful research impact. For legal academics, those communities typically include the courts, government bureaus and bodies, international organisations, law reform agencies, legal practitioners, non-governmental organisations, educational institutions, and, of course, individuals with legal problems.

Our Faculty has a long track record of KE with local and international communities, and this booklet captures more recent impactful work undertaken by colleagues. Going forwards, the Faculty’s KE strategy aims for more international impact that directly contributes to law and policy making. With the assistance of our KE Manager, we will continue our pro-active approach of identifying evidence of and opportunities for research impact."

The booklet can be read and downloaded here.

Peter Chau on Bennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment (Crim L & Philo)

"Bennett's Expressive Justification of Punishment"
Peter Chau
Criminal Law and Philosophy
2016, First Online May 2016, pp 1-19

Abstract: In this paper, I will critically assess the expressive justification of punishment recently offered by Christopher Bennett in The Apology Ritual and a number of papers. I will first draw a distinction between three conceptions of expression: communicative, motivational, and symbolic. After briefly demonstrating the difficulties of using the first two conceptions of expression to ground punishment and showing that Bennett does not ultimately rely on those two conceptions, I argue that Bennett’s account does not succeed because he fails to establish the following claims: (1) punishment is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing; and (2) punishment is permissible if it is the only symbolically adequate response to a wrongdoing.

Hualing Fu Interviewed on Chinese Lawyer's 7-Year Sentence (WSJ)

"Chinese Lawyer Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison"
Josh Chin
The Wall Street Journal
4 August 2016

A Chinese court sentenced a lawyer whose firm is known for taking on politically sensitive cases to seven years in prison, in what a former colleague said was an unexpectedly harsh sentence, signaling that Beijing intends to keep squeezing the already constricted space for dissent in the country.

     The lawyer, Zhou Shifeng, was a target in a government sweep a year ago in which roughly two dozen lawyers and activists were arrested and more than 300 others briefly detained or interrogated. That began an offensive against what was once a growing human-rights movement among Chinese lawyers.

     Appearing in court on Thursday in the city of Tianjin, Mr. Zhou was the first lawyer among those arrested to face trial. He was sentenced to seven years after he pleaded guilty to subverting state power, according to the official Xinhua News Agency... 

    Mr. Zhou’s sentence suggests other arrested lawyers will face similar punishment. It also indicates authorities’ concern over the influence of lawyers as Chinese President Xi Jinping pushes a broad crackdown aimed at stifling challenges to the Communist Party’s authority.

     “If you look at the landscape of resistance, you don’t see many other people left,” said Fu Hualing, a law professor at Hong Kong University. “Falun Gong is pretty much gone. The only ones that can stand up to the government are the lawyers. They have the organizing power, so they pose a threat.”... Click here to read the full article.

Dean Hor to Speak at Criminal Justice Conference in Singapore

Dean Michael Hor and Po Jen Yap will be speaking at the Criminal Justice Conference 2015: Criminal Justice and the Singapore Constitution to be held on 15 August 2015 at the Singapore Management University.  They will speaking on a panel addressing Punishment/Sentencing and the Singapore Constitution.  Some of the issues that might be discussed on this panel include  

• Limits on the types of punishment that the state can impose 
• Punishment/ sentencing, Art 12 and the rule of law in Singapore
• Mandatory minimum sentences 
• Constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman/unusual punishments 
• Judicial independence and judicial power in sentencing 
• The rights of prisoners in Singapore and Art 10

Click here for more information about the conference.