In the context of a technology-driven algorithmic approach to criminal justice, this paper responds to the following three questions: (1) what reasons are there for treating liberal values and human rights as guiding for punitive justice; (2) is preventive justice comparable to punitive justice (such that the guiding values of the latter should be applied to the former); and (3) what should we make of preventive measures that rely not so much on rules and orders, but on ‘technological management’ (where the preventive strategy is focused on eliminating practical options)? Responding to the first question, a Gewirthian-inspired theory of punishment is sketched – a theory that is, broadly speaking, supportive of liberal values and respect for human rights. What makes this theory apodictic for any human agent is that it demands respect for the very conditions on which any articulation of agency is predicated. With regard to the second question, we indicate how a Gewirthian view of the relationship between punitive and preventive justice supports the logic of referring to the principles that guide the former as a benchmark for the latter; and we suggest some particular principles of preventive justice where the restrictions are targeted at individual agents (whether in their own right or as members of classes). Finally, we suggest that, although technological management of crime changes the complexion of the regulatory environment in ways that might be a challenge to a Gewirthian moral community, it should not be categorically rejected. Crucially, technological management, like other preventive strategies, needs to be integrated into the community's moral narrative and authorised only to the extent that it is compatible with the governing moral principles.

中文翻译：

---

分析、智能预测和实际排除时代的惩罚性和预防性司法：三个关键问题

在技​​术驱动的刑事司法算法方法的背景下，本文回应了以下三个问题：（1）有什么理由将自由价值观和人权视为惩罚性司法的指导；(2) 预防性正义与惩罚性正义具有可比性（后者的指导价值应适用于前者）；（3）我们应该如何看待不依赖于规则和命令而是依赖于“技术管理”（预防策略侧重于消除实际选择）的预防措施？在回答第一个问题时，我们勾勒出一种受 Gewirthian 启发的惩罚理论——从广义上讲，该理论支持自由价值观和尊重人权。是什么让这个理论对任何人类行为者都毫无意义，因为它要求尊重任何能动性表达所依赖的条件。关于第二个问题，我们指出，格维尔斯式的惩罚性司法与预防性司法关系的观点如何支持将指导前者的原则作为后者的基准的逻辑；我们提出了一些特定的预防性正义原则，其中的限制针对的是个体代理人（无论是他们自己的权利还是作为阶级的成员）。最后，我们建议，尽管犯罪的技术管理以可能对 Gewirthian 道德社区构成挑战的方式改变了监管环境的复杂性，但不应断然拒绝。关键是技术管理，