共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Shelley Tremain 《希帕蒂亚:女权主义哲学杂志》2012,27(2):440-445
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The Paradoxical Rationality of Søren Kierkegaard. By
Richard McCombs. Pp. xii, 244, Bloomington,Indiana University Press, 2013, $24.00.
Kierkegaard,Communication, and Virtue: Authorship as Edification. By
Mark A. Tietjen. Pp. x, 156, Bloomington,Indiana University Press, 2013, $15.00.
下载免费PDF全文
![点击此处可从《Heythrop Journal》网站下载免费的PDF全文](/ch/ext_images/free.gif)
Trent Davis 《Heythrop Journal》2017,58(4):703-705
17.
Emily Anne Parker 《希帕蒂亚:女权主义哲学杂志》2012,27(4):936-942
18.
Mark S. Hamm 《Behavioral sciences & the law》1989,7(1):107-125
Over the course of the past decade and a half, enormous energy and talent have been devoted to the issue of determinate sentencing. Yet today we know little about the values underlying this reform, and we know even less about the efficacy of determinate sentencing as a crime control policy. This article considers these issues in Indiana 10 years after the renovation of the state's Penal Code. Through a survey of state legislators, an examination of law, official statistics, and personal interview data, the analysis endeavors to understand the ideologies, pragmatics, and impacts of sentencing reform. It is suggested that the implementation of determinate sentencing represents a corruption of both good intentions (“conscience)” and policy objectives. Parenthetically, the article argues that the constructs known as the crime control model and the justice model both constitute a case of arid scholasticism. That is, sentencing reform can be more fully understood in terms of organizational “convenience”. 相似文献
19.