First of all, when I said "for the determinists on this thread", I was not referring to you. I was operating under the assumption you were NOT a determinist, but since we were discussing the book, I wanted to add that bit from David Kelley for the determinists on the thread. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to include it in a separate post.
Regarding the consequentialist/utilitarian position, I was strictly referring to the theory of punishment that looks forward to the consequences of the punishment as opposed to looking backward at the actions of the criminal (i.e. retribution)--whether or not one connected it to the utilitarian ethic of "greatest good for the greatest number" or made it more "individualist". And AR is NOT consequentialist, she speaks of a criminal getting what he morally deserves for his actions, this is the language of moral retribution. Before you can answer the question of what form of punishment is consistent with self-interest, you must answer the question: what gives the state the right to impose punishment in the first place? You can call your position individualist consequentialist if you want, but you are subject to the same pitfalls as the Jeremy Bentham-style consequentialist.
And the retribution position is not "circular", unless, of course, you disagree that each man is his own causal agent and responsible for the consequences of his actions? It is "grounded" in man's nature as a volitional, rational being. In a social context, this means each man deals voluntarily with other mean to their mutual self-interests. The state's role is to objectively define what conduct constitutes force (i.e. involuntary coercion) and imposing negative consequence for attempting to gain values and live among rational by force. What form the negative consequences take then becomes the next question.
And by the way, this does NOT mean one ignores the consequences of the punishment. Clearly, neither I nor Mr. Bidinotto have done this, to be sure the are practical consequences of punishment should be aligned with the self-interest of the victims--this is the necessary outgrowth of holding the criminal accountable for his actions against the victim. You quoted Kelley's phrase "in our midst" as supporting incarceration to prevent recidivism. Then you go on to say that Mr. Bidinotto position is different, which is completely false. First of all, Mr. Bidinotto gives explicit acknowledgement to David Kelley for helping in the formulation of his arguments (see footnotes of essay "Criminal Responsibility"), so obviously there was a high level of agreement. Now to the source itself, Mr. Bidinotto writes in "Crime and Moral Retribution":
Such a system [punishment based on moral retribution] would also incorporate many of the practical crime-fighting goals of the utilitarian. For example, long terms of confinement under harsh conditions, with inmates forced to work and pay restitution to victims and taxpayers, would deter far more criminals and would-be criminals than a brief vacation at a country club such as Mercer. Such punishments would also incapacitate and—who knows?—possibly knock some sense into the occasional inmate, thus fostering his desire to rehabilitate himselfAND
Prisons are an unavoidable part of the punitive strategy. Unlike prevention, rehabilitation or deterrence, incapacitation is the only certain crime-reduction method: while locked up, a criminal can't commit crimes.This last quote sounds like incarceration to prevent recidivism to me!!! After reading all of Mr. Bidinotto essays in his book, Adam, your criticisms fall flat on their face. Why not provide quotes from Mr. Bidinotto to bolster your arguments? Otherwise, to those who have read his essays, your criticisms seem like mere assertions without having read the material.
As to the Swiss system issue, I want to compare their rules of discovery and criminal procedure with those in the US. I suppose I could look it up on Lexus/Nexis, but I thought you might have a couple of links and/or sources handy. If you do, I would greatly appreciate them, I want to examine which system is more objective.