As Anglo-American legal systems face unsustainable levels of imprisonment, this book provides an ethical rationale for moving in a direction that pragmatic considerations already press us toward: reducing punitiveness. Every mainstream moral justification for criminal sanctions is subject to formidable objections, creating “moral uncertainty” about whether any single justification can adequately guide policymakers. Instead, this book defends 'The Convergence Approach' -- basing penal policy on areas of agreement between theories. This provides an ethical “safety net” so that even if one's preferred theory is flawed, another theory could still justify the policy. The book also proposes a presumption against imposing sanctions of a severity that a reasonable theory would deem excessive, and emulating less punitive Nordic systems. It discusses moral/legal principles applicable across many jurisdictions, providing accessible, up-to-date, interdisciplinary, and topical discussions of the prisons crisis, penal theories, moral psychology, crime prevention, and victims' and offenders' rights.

‘Shaw extensively develops an engaging argument for making substantial reforms to our criminal justice systems. Starting with the claim that we can all agree on – that for any proposed justification for criminal sanctions, there are reasons to doubt it – while acknowledging that there is widespread disagreement about which particular view is correct, Shaw explores what else we can agree on, and what implications this has for criminal justice systems. The argument's ecumenical nature means that theorists of all stripes can find much of interest, and much to grapple with, in this book.'

Gabriel De Marco - University of Oxford