Contents
113 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 113
  1. Self-Defense and Imminence.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    This paper argues that there is a significant moral difference between force applied against (imminent) attackers on the one hand and force applied against “threatening” people who are not (imminent) attackers on the other. Given that there is such a difference, one should not blur the lines by using the term “self-defense” (understood as including other-defense) for both uses of force. Rather, only the former is appropriately called self-defense, while for the latter, following German legal terminology, the term “justifying defensive (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Self-Defense and the Necessity Condition.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    Rights forfeiture or liability are not a path to the permissibility of self-defense (not even barring extraordinary circumstances), and the necessity condition is not intrinsic to justified self-defense. Rather, necessity in the context of justification must be distinguished from necessity in the context of rights forfeiture. While innocent aggressors only forfeit their right against necessary self-defense, culpable aggressors also forfeit, on grounds of a principle of reciprocity, certain rights against unnecessary self-defense. Yet, while culpable aggressors would therefore not be wronged (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Shortcomings of and Alternatives to the Rights-Forfeiture Theory of Justified Self-Defense and Punishment.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    I argue that rights-forfeiture by itself is no path to permissibility at all (even barring special circumstances), neither in the case of self-defense nor in the case of punishment. The limiting conditions of self-defense, for instance – necessity, proportionality (or no gross disproportionality), and the subjective element – are different in the context of forfeiture than in the context of justification (and might even be absent in the former context). In particular, I argue that a culpable aggressor, unlike an innocent (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Relever le défi déterministe une défense à la fois.Simon Pierre Chevarie-Cossette - forthcoming - Chroniques Universitaires.
    In this leçon inaugurale (inaugural lecture) at the University of Neuchâtel, I explain how we can tackle the problem of determinism by asking whether it would give us a justification, an excuse, or an exemption. This strategy builds on Peter Strawson's in Freedom and Resentment, but completes it by (1) proposing a theory of excuses ; (2) proposing that lacking alternatives might give a weak justification--i.e. it might exclude wrongdoing. This forces us to make the best of two philosophical traditions, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Excuse, justification and collapse.Alexander Sarch - forthcoming - Jurisprudence.
    For any putative excuse, why not recast it as a justification rendering one’s wrongful conduct ultimately permissible? This paper confronts the worry that many, perhaps all, excuses might collapse into justifications – either in morality or criminal law. It is an especially pressing problem for normative expectations views, on which excuses speak to a lower standard than justifications. I argue that the prospects for decisively blocking collapse within morality look bleak – at least if we adhere to an important constraint (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Excusing Corporate Wrongdoing and the State of Nature.Kenneth Silver & Paul Garofalo - forthcoming - Academy of Management Review.
    Most business ethicists maintain that corporate actors are subject to a variety of moral obligations. However, there is a persistent and underappreciated concern that the competitive pressures of the market somehow provide corporate actors with a far-reaching excuse from meeting these obligations. Here, we assess this concern. Blending resources from the history of philosophy and strategic management, we demonstrate the assumptions required for and limits of this excuse. Applying the idea of ‘the state of nature’ from Thomas Hobbes, we suggest (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. How Far Can Genealogies Affect the Space of Reasons? Vindication, Justification and Excuses.Francesco Testini - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
    Pragmatic vindicatory genealogies provide both a cause and a rationale and can thus affect the space of reasons. But how far is the space of reasons affected by this kind of genealogical argument? What normative and evaluative implications do these arguments have? In this paper, I unpack this issue into three different sub-questions and explain what kinds of reasons they provide, for whom are these reasons, and for what. In relation to this final sub-question I argue, most importantly, that these (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  8. Blameworthiness Implies 'Ought Not'.Simon-Pierre Chevarie-Cossette - 2024 - Philosophical Studies:1-21.
    Here is a crucial principle for debates about moral luck, responsibility, and free will: a subject is blameworthy for an act only if, in acting, she did what she ought not to have done. That is, ‘blameworthiness’ implies ‘ought not’ (BION). There are some good reasons to accept BION, but whether we should accept it depends on complex questions about the objectivity of ought and the subjectivity of blameworthiness. This paper offers an exploratory defence of BION: it gives three prima (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Entrapment.Daniel J. Hill, Stephen K. McLeod & Attila Tanyi - 2024 - Elgar Encylopedia of Crime and Criminal Justice.
    We discuss how the law and scholars have approached three questions. First, what acts count as acts of entrapment? Secondly, is entrapment a permissible method of law-enforcement and, if so, in what circumstances? Thirdly, what must criminal courts do, in response to the finding that an offence was brought about by an act of entrapment, in order to deliver justice? While noting the contrary tendency, we suggest that the first question should be addressed in a manner that is neutral about (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10. Amnesia and Punishment.Austen McDougal - 2024 - Ethics 135 (1):36-64.
    Should punishment be abated for offenders suffering from amnesia? Philosophers have largely overlooked this question. Extant views cluster around a straightforward answer: deserving punishment depends on remembering one’s crime. However, arguments for that view rely on implausible assumptions; the view also implies that offenders could manipulate how much punishment they deserve. Instead, uneasiness about punishing amnesiacs should be traced to distinctive grounds for showing mercy. Amnesiacs who cannot access their past motives are unable to fully comprehend their own role in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Let’s forget about forfeiture.Cristián Rettig - 2024 - Jurisprudence 15 (4).
    Volume 15, Issue 4, December 2024, Page 482-496.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. El estatus jurídico del límite mínimo del marco punitivo.Manuel Serrano - 2024 - Revista Quaestio Iuris 17 (1):74-103.
    En la literatura jurídica existe un acuerdo generalizado en que los topes máximos de la pena establecidos la legislación son un límite infranqueable por los jueces. Sin embargo, al abordar el límite mínimo los desacuerdos comienzan a surgir. El objetivo del presente trabajo será el de defender que los mínimos penales, si bien son vinculantes para los jueces, pueden ser dejados de lado cuando las circunstancias particulares del caso lo ameriten. El método empleado será análisis conceptual, más precisamente, al contructivismo (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Gregg D. Caruso: Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice.Thom Brooks - 2023 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 26 (1):157-159.
  14. Review of Benjamin S. Yost, "Against Capital Punishment".Thom Brooks - 2023 - Ethics 133 (4):662-666.
    Review of Benjamin Yost's Against Capital Punishment by Thom Brooks.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Applying the Imminence Requirement to Police.Ben Jones - 2023 - Criminal Justice Ethics 42 (1):52-63.
    In many jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere, the law governing deadly force by police and civilians contains a notable asymmetry. Often civilians but not police are bound by the imminence requirement—that is, a necessary condition for justifying deadly force is reasonable belief that oneself or another innocent person faces imminent threat of grave harm. In U.S. law enforcement, however, there has been some shift toward the imminence requirement, most evident in the use-of-force policy adopted by the Department of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16. Let's Not Do Responsibility Skepticism.Ken M. Levy - 2023 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 40 (3):458-73.
    I argue for three conclusions. First, responsibility skeptics are committed to the position that the criminal justice system should adopt a universal nonresponsibility excuse. Second, a universal nonresponsibility excuse would diminish some of our most deeply held values, further dehumanize criminals, exacerbate mass incarceration, and cause an even greater number of innocent people (nonwrongdoers) to be punished. Third, while Saul Smilansky's ‘illusionist’ response to responsibility skeptics – that even if responsibility skepticism is correct, society should maintain a responsibility‐realist/retributivist criminal justice (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17. Deserving Blame, and Sometimes Punishment.Katrina L. Sifferd - 2023 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 18 (1):133-150.
    Michael S. Moore is a whole-hearted retributivist. The triumph of Mechanical Choices is that Moore provides a thoroughly physicalist, reductionist-friendly, compatibilist account of the features that make persons deserving of blame and punishment. Many who embrace scientific accounts of psychology worry that from this perspective the grounds for desert disappear; but Moore argues that folk psychological accounts of responsibility—such as those found in the criminal law—are either vindicated or not implicated by science. Moore claims that criminal punishment can be justified (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18. Renouncing the attempt versus perpetration distinction.Izabela Skoczeń - 2023 - Synthese 201 (1):1-29.
    Legal and moral luck goes against the basic principle of criminal law that responsibility ascriptions are based on the mental state of the perpetrator, rather than merely the outcome of her action. If outcome should not play a decisive role in responsibility ascriptions, the attempt versus perpetration distinction becomes more difficult to justify. One potential justification is that we never know whether the attempter would not have resigned from pursuing her criminal intent even at the last moment. However, this paper (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. Five perspectives on holding wrongdoers responsible in Kant.Benjamin Vilhauer - 2023 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 32 (1):100-125.
    The first part of this paper surveys five perspectives in Kant’s philosophy on the quantity of retribution to be inflicted on wrongdoers, ordered by two dimensions of difference – whether they are theoretical or practical perspectives, and the quantity of retribution they prescribe: (1) theoretical zero, the perspective of theoretical philosophy; (2) practical infinity, the perspective of God and conscience; (3) practical equality, the perspective of punishment in public law; (4) practical degrees, the perspective we adopt in private relations to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20. Punitive Restoration.Thom Brooks - 2022 - In Matthew C. Altman (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook on the Philosophy of Punishment. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 639-656.
    Restorative justice is highly promising as an effective approach to better supporting victims, reducing reoffending, and lowering costs. The challenge it faces is a dual hurdle of limited applicability and lack of public confidence. The issue is how we might better embed restorative justice in the criminal justice system so its promising effectiveness could be shared more widely while increasing public confidence. This chapter explores the new approach of punitive restoration, which gives more tools for restoration including a wider punitive (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. What is the Incoherence Objection to Legal Entrapment?Daniel J. Hill, Stephen K. McLeod & Attila Tanyi - 2022 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 22 (1):47-73.
    Some legal theorists say that legal entrapment to commit a crime is incoherent. So far, there is no satisfactorily precise statement of this objection in the literature: it is obscure even as to the type of incoherence that is purportedly involved. (Perhaps consequently, substantial assessment of the objection is also absent.) We aim to provide a new statement of the objection that is more precise and more rigorous than its predecessors. We argue that the best form of the objection asserts (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22. Police-Generated Killings: The Gap between Ethics and Law.Ben Jones - 2022 - Political Research Quarterly 75 (2):366-378.
    This article offers a normative analysis of some of the most controversial incidents involving police—what I call police-generated killings. In these cases, bad police tactics create a situation where deadly force becomes necessary, becomes perceived as necessary, or occurs unintentionally. Police deserve blame for such killings because they choose tactics that unnecessarily raise the risk of deadly force, thus violating their obligation to prioritize the protection of life. Since current law in the United States fails to ban many bad tactics, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  23. A justification for excuses: Brown’s discussion of the knowledge view of justification and the excuse manoeuvre.Clayton Littlejohn - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (8):2683-2696.
    In Fallibilism: Evidence and Knowledge, Jessica Brown identifies a number of problems for the so-called knowledge view of justification. According to this view, we cannot justifiably believe what we do not know. Most epistemologists reject this view on the grounds that false beliefs can be justified if, say, supported by the evidence or produced by reliable processes. We think this is a mistake and that many epistemologists are classifying beliefs as justified because they have properties that indicate that something should (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  24. Lesser Evils, Mere Permissions and Justifying Reasons in Law.Robert Mullins - 2022 - In James Penner & Mark McBride (eds.), New Essays on the Nature of Legal Reasoning. Hart Publishing. pp. 259-280.
    This Chapter is concerned with cases in which we are justified in performing an otherwise prohibited action but not required to perform it. My discussion focusses on cases in which conduct is permitted because it amounts to a ‘lesser evil’. What interests me is the curious nexus that these cases illustrate between justifying reasons and the conclusion that conduct is either permitted or required. So-called reason-based or ‘reasons-first’ accounts hold that our normative conclusions—our conclusions about what we are required to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Do Rapists Deserve Criminal Treatment?Katrina L. Sifferd - 2022 - In Matthew C. Altman (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook on the Philosophy of Punishment. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 513-533.
    In this chapter, Sifferd analyzes the grounds for moral and legal desert. She bridges the gap between compatibilist accounts of our moral and legal responsibility, and she argues that neither moral nor criminal responsibility demand impossible or superhuman abilities. Sifferd’s capacitarian view of agency embraces our mechanistic natures yet can still ground robust mental causation, a key requirement for criminal culpability. She also notes the ways in which the capacity for reasons-responsiveness is developed and maintained over time, and she claims (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. (1 other version)Punishment: A Critical Introduction.Thom Brooks - 2021 - Routledge.
    This new second edition of Punishment includes a revised and expanded defence of the groundbreaking unified theory of punishment that brings together elements of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation into a new coherent framework. Thom Brooks expands the chapter length case studies from capital punishment, juvenile offending, domestic violence and sex crimes to include new chapters on social media offences and corporate liability addressing some of today's most pressing issues in criminal justice.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27. Retributivism and uncertainty : Why do we punish criminals?Sofia Jeppsson - 2021 - Daily Philosophy (18).
    Published on Daily Philosophy 2021-10-18 Why do we have a criminal justice system? What could possibly justify the state punishing its citizens? Philosophers, scholars of law, politicians and others have proposed different justifications, one of them being retributivism: the view that we ought to give offenders the suffering that they deserve for harming others. However, intentionally harming other people and making them suffer is serious business. If we are to do this in the name of what’s right and good, we (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. Distinctive duress.Craig K. Agule - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (4):1007-1026.
    Duress is a defense in both law and morality. The bank teller who provides an armed robber with the bank vault combination, the innocent suspect who fabricates a story after hours of interrogation, the Good Samaritan who breaks into a private cabin in the woods to save a stranded hiker, and the father who drives at high speed to rush his injured child to the hospital—in deciding how to respond to agents like these, we should take into account that they (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  29. Normative Ignorance: A Critical Connection Between the Insanity and Mistake of Law Defenses.Ken Levy - 2020 - Florida State University Law Review 47:411-443.
    This Article falls into three general parts. The first part starts with an important question: is the insanity defense constitutionally required? The United States Supreme Court will finally try to answer this question next term in the case of Kahler v. Kansas. -/- I say “finally” because the Court refused to answer this question in 2012 when it denied certiorari to an appeal brought by John Joseph Delling, a severely mentally ill defendant who was sentenced to life in prison three (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. The insanity defence without mental illness? Some considerations.Luca Malatesti, Marko Jurjako & Gerben Meynen - 2020 - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 71.
    In this paper we aim to offer a balanced argument to motivate (re)thinking about the mental illness clause within the insanity defence. This is the clause that states that mental illness should have a relevant causal or explanatory role for the presence of the incapacities or limited capacities that are covered by this defence. We offer three main considerations showing the important legal and epistemological roles that the mental illness clause plays in the evaluation of legal responsibility. Although we acknowledge (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  31. Limiting Identity in Criminal Law.Mihailis E. Diamantis - 2019 - Boston College Law Review 60:2011-2099.
    People change with time. Their personalities, values, and preferences shift incrementally as they accrue life experience, discover new sources of meaning, and form/lose memories. Accumulated psychological changes eventually reshape not just how someone relates to the world about her, but also who she is as a person. This transience of human identity has profound implications for criminal law. Previous legal scholarship on personal identity has assumed that only abrupt tragedy and disease can change who we are. However, psychologists now know (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32. Punishing Wrongs from the Distant Past.Thomas Douglas - 2019 - Law and Philosophy 38 (4):335-358.
    On a Parfit-inspired account of culpability, as the psychological connections between a person’s younger self and older self weaken, the older self’s culpability for a wrong committed by the younger self diminishes. Suppose we accept this account and also accept a culpability-based upper limit on punishment severity. On this combination of views, we seem forced to conclude that perpetrators of distant past wrongs should either receive discounted punishments or be exempted from punishment entirely. This article develops a strategy for resisting (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. Legal Epistemology.Georgi Gardiner - 2019 - Oxford Bibliographies Online.
  34. Justifications and excuses in epistemology.Daniel Greco - 2019 - Noûs 55 (3):517-537.
    While epistemologists have long debated what it takes for beliefs to be justified, they've devoted much less collective attention to the question of what it takes for beliefs to be excused, and how excuses differ from justifications. This stands in contrast to the state of affairs in legal scholarship, where the contrast between justifications and excuses is a standard topic in introductory criminal law textbooks. My goal in this paper is to extract some lessons from legal theory for epistemologists seeking (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  35. The Paradox of Consent.Stephen Kershnar - 2019 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (2):305-318.
    If consent is valid (that is, morally transformative), then in every case it is either valid or invalid. This is because of the notion that (when valid) consent eliminates a right and a person either has or lacks a right against another. A parallel problem to the paradox of symmetrical attackers applies to consent. That is, there is a case in which two people neither consent nor do not consent to one another. As a practical matter, attorneys, judges, legislators, physicians, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Free Will, Responsibility, and Crime: An Introduction.Ken Levy - 2019 - New York, USA: Routledge.
    In his book, philosopher and law professor Ken Levy explains why he agrees with most people, but not with most other philosophers, about free will and responsibility. Most people believe that we have both - that is, that our choices, decisions, and actions are neither determined nor undetermined but rather fully self-determined. By contrast, most philosophers understand just how difficult it is to defend this "metaphysical libertarian" position. So they tend to opt for two other theories: "responsibility skepticism" and "compatibilism". (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  37. (1 other version)Criminal Responsibility.Ken M. Levy - 2019 - In Robert D. Morgan (ed.), SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology. Sage Publishing. pp. 269-272.
    This invited entry offers a brief overview of criminal responsibility. -/- The first part starts with a question: is Clyde criminally responsible for killing his girlfriend Bonnie? The answer: it depends. Particular circumstances determine whether Clyde is guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, not guilty because he has a good excuse, or not guilty because he has a good justification. -/- The second part addresses the complicated relationship between criminal responsibility and moral responsibility. Until recently, both concepts were considered to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. Rights in Criminal Law in the Light of a Will Theory.Elias Moser - 2019 - Criminal Justice Ethics 38 (3):176-197.
    The will theory of rights has so far been considered incapable of capturing individual rights under criminal law. Adherents of the will theory, therefore, have defended the claim that criminal law does not assign rights to individuals. In this article I argue first, that criminal law does assign individual rights and second, that the will theory of rights may enhance our understanding of these rights. The two major implications of the account are: a volenti non fit iniuria principle for criminal (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Justifying Prison Breaks as Civil Disobedience.Isaac Shur - 2019 - Aporia 19 (2):14-26.
    I argue that given the persistent injustice present within the Prison Industrial Complex in the United States, many incarcerated individuals would be justified in attempting to escape and that these prison breaks may qualify as acts of civil disobedience. After an introduction in section one, section two offers a critique of the classical liberal conception of civil disobedience envisioned by John Rawls. Contrary to Rawls, I argue that acts of civil disobedience can involve both violence and evasion of punishment, both (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Hate Crime Laws.Kenneth W. Simons - 2019 - In Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Springer Verlag. pp. 285-311.
    This chapter reaches the following conclusions about laws that enhance punishment for criminal conduct prompted by group hatred or bias:Hatred should not be either a necessary or a sufficient condition for enhanced punishment.Enhanced punishment is justifiable when bias crimes display greater culpability, express disrespect for the victim’s group, or cause either greater psychic harm to the victim or group-specific outrage in the victim’s community.Properly designed bias crime laws do not improperly punish for thoughts or character.Such laws are more defensible if (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. 'Reasonable Steps': Amending Section 273.2 to Reflect the Jurisprudence.Lucinda Ann Vandervort - 2019 - Criminal Law Quarterly 66 (4):376-387.
    This piece proposes amendments to section 273.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Section 273.2, enacted in 1992 and revised in 2018, specifies circumstances in which belief in consent is not a defence to sexual assault. The amendments proposed here are designed to ensure that the wording of this statutory provision properly reflects the significant jurisprudential developments related to mens rea and the communication of voluntary agreement (i.e., affirmative sexual consent) achieved by Canadian judges since the original enactment of section 273.2 (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Nowożytne przeobrażenia systemu karnego według Michela Foucaulta.Michał Wieczorkowski - 2019 - Warszawa, Polska: C.H. Beck.
    Kara – jako immanentny element społeczeństwa – jest obiektem szeroko zakrojonych badań teoretyków różnych dziedzin – prawników, filozofów jak i socjologów. Bardzo często refleksje na jej temat wiązały się z artykułowaniem określonych postulatów – analiza tego, czym jest kara, przybierała tu postać twierdzeń o tym, czym kara być powinna. Dopiero wiek XIX przyniósł głębsze zainteresowanie historią kary. To wtedy właśnie analizy karania zaczęły przyjmować charakter deskryptywny, starając się ująć, jaką funkcję przypisywano karze w danym społeczeństwie w określonym momencie historycznym. Wydaje (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. The Concept of Entrapment.Daniel J. Hill, Stephen K. McLeod & Attila Tanyi - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (4):539-554.
    Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law- enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  44. Responsible Brains: Neuroscience, Law, and Human Culpability.William Hirstein, Katrina L. Sifferd & Tyler K. Fagan - 2018 - New York, NY, USA: MIT Press. Edited by Katrina Sifferd & Tyler Fagan.
    [This download includes the table of contents and chapter 1.] -/- When we praise, blame, punish, or reward people for their actions, we are holding them responsible for what they have done. Common sense tells us that what makes human beings responsible has to do with their minds and, in particular, the relationship between their minds and their actions. Yet the empirical connection is not necessarily obvious. The “guilty mind” is a core concept of criminal law, but if a defendant (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  45. Neuropsychology and the Criminal Responsibility of Psychopaths: Reconsidering the Evidence.Marko Jurjako & Luca Malatesti - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (5):1003-1025.
    Recently it has been argued that certain neuropsychological findings on the decision-making, instrumental learning, and moral understanding in psychopathic offenders offer reasons to consider them not criminally responsible, due to certain epistemic and volitional impairments. We reply to this family of arguments, that collectively we call the irresponsibility of the psychopath argument. This type of argument has a premise that describes or prescribes the deficiencies that grant or should grant partial or complete criminal exculpation. The other premise contends that neuropsychological (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  46. Self-Control in Responsibility Enhancement and Criminal Rehabilitation.Polaris Koi, Susanne Uusitalo & Jarno Tuominen - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (2):227-244.
    Ethicists have for the past 20 years debated the possibility of using neurointerventions to improve intelligence and even moral capacities, and thereby create a safer society. Contributing to a recent debate concerning neurointerventions in criminal rehabilitation, Nicole Vincent and Elizabeth Shaw have separately discussed the possibility of responsibility enhancement. In their ethical analyses, enhancing a convict’s capacity responsibility may be permissible. Both Vincent and Shaw consider self-control to be one of the constituent mental capacities of capacity responsibility. In this paper, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  47. A New Societal Self-Defense Theory of Punishment—The Rights-Protection Theory.Hsin-Wen Lee - 2018 - Philosophia 46 (2):337-353.
    In this paper, I propose a new self-defense theory of punishment, the rights-protection theory. By appealing to the interest theory of right, I show that what we call “the right of self-defense” is actually composed of the right to protect our basic rights. The right of self-defense is not a single, self-standing right but a group of derivative rights justified by their contribution to the protection of the core, basic rights. Thus, these rights of self-defense are both justified and constrained (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  48. Review of Ignorance Of Law: A Philosophical Inquiry, by Douglas Husak. [REVIEW]Stephen Bero - 2017 - Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books 2017 (March).
  49. Unlocking Morality from Criminal Law.Thom Brooks - 2017 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 14 (3):339-352.
    This review article critically examines R. A. Duff and Stuart P. Green’s wide-ranging Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law. The book captures well a crucial debate at the heart of its topic: is morality a key for understanding criminal law? I first consider legal moralism arguments answering this question in the affirmative and argue they should be rejected. I next consider alternatives to argue that philosophers of criminal law should look beyond legal moralism for more compelling theories about criminal law.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. ‘Drugs That Make You Feel Bad’? Remorse-Based Mitigation and Neurointerventions.Jonathan Pugh & Hannah Maslen - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (3):499-522.
    In many jurisdictions, an offender’s remorse is considered to be a relevant factor to take into account in mitigation at sentencing. The growing philosophical interest in the use of neurointerventions in criminal justice raises an important question about such remorse-based mitigation: to what extent should technologically facilitated remorse be honoured such that it is permitted the same penal significance as standard instances of remorse? To motivate this question, we begin by sketching a tripartite account of remorse that distinguishes cognitive, affective (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
1 — 50 / 113