In Defence of One Type of Retributivism: A Reply to Bagaric and Amarasekara

Antony Duff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)411
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume24
StatePublished - 2000

Cite this

In Defence of One Type of Retributivism: A Reply to Bagaric and Amarasekara. / Duff, Antony.

In: Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 24, 2000, p. 411.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fcc03f3d677b473785fe1b21d86c4119,
title = "In Defence of One Type of Retributivism: A Reply to Bagaric and Amarasekara",
author = "Antony Duff",
year = "2000",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "411",
journal = "Melbourne University Law Review",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Defence of One Type of Retributivism: A Reply to Bagaric and Amarasekara

AU - Duff, Antony

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 411

JO - Melbourne University Law Review

JF - Melbourne University Law Review

ER -