Pub Date : 2024-07-16DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09734-7
Leonara G. Catuara
{"title":"The Side-Effects of Imprisonment: Harm to the Family","authors":"Leonara G. Catuara","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09734-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09734-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141641758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-13DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09735-6
Terry Skolnik
{"title":"Cruel and Unusual Punishments as Legislative Gross Negligence","authors":"Terry Skolnik","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09735-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09735-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141348901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09732-9
Abstract
Scholars depict punishment as a moral dialogue between the community and the offender, which addresses both the offender’s crime and character. However, how the penal message evolves vis a vis that crime and character as it passes through the different stages of the criminal process has remained under-theorized. This article, building on communicative theory, explores the interrelation between crime and character along the penal process, from sentencing, through prison, to parole release. We argue that in the penal dialogue the relationship between crime and character evolves in a dynamic way through three phases: separateness (sentencing), fusion (prison), and re-distinction (parole) of crime and character. The proposed analysis develops the communicative meaning of the penal process, provides a normative account of the work of punishment administration authorities, and explores applications of our proposed normative analysis for the administration of the punishment.
{"title":"Crime, Character, and the Evolution of the Penal Message","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09732-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09732-9","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Scholars depict punishment as a moral dialogue between the community and the offender, which addresses both the offender’s crime and character. However, how the penal message evolves vis a vis that crime and character as it passes through the different stages of the criminal process has remained under-theorized. This article, building on communicative theory, explores the interrelation between crime and character along the penal process, from sentencing, through prison, to parole release. We argue that in the penal dialogue the relationship between crime and character evolves in a dynamic way through three phases: <em>separateness</em> (sentencing), <em>fusion</em> (prison), and <em>re-distinction</em> (parole) of crime and character. The proposed analysis develops the communicative meaning of the penal process, provides a normative account of the work of punishment administration authorities, and explores applications of our proposed normative analysis for the administration of the punishment.</p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140571856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09726-7
J. P. Fassnidge
The act of criminalising conduct has been understood by many theorists as a form of communication. This paper proposes a model, based on speech-act theory, for understanding how that act of communication works. In particular, it focuses on analysing how and where wrongfulness can appear in this speech-act, if one were to argue, as many theorists do, that part of what is being communicated through criminalisation is the wrongfulness of the target conduct. I argue that the act of criminalisation is best understood as an indirect speech-act, which both asserts and declares normative facts, the utterance of which makes it the case that a conduct is now criminalised. Within this speech-act, wrongfulness can appear as an implicit assertion of the wrongness of the conduct, which has to be inferred by hearers from the context of utterance. The paper then briefly discusses the upshots of this model, mainly that it allows a clearer picture of how criminalisation conveys meanings, as well as leaving open the question as to whether it makes sense to think that the wrongfulness being conveyed is specifically of a moral kind.
{"title":"Criminalisation as a Speech-Act: Saying Through Criminalising","authors":"J. P. Fassnidge","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09726-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09726-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The act of criminalising conduct has been understood by many theorists as a form of communication. This paper proposes a model, based on speech-act theory, for understanding how that act of communication works. In particular, it focuses on analysing how and where wrongfulness can appear in this speech-act, if one were to argue, as many theorists do, that part of what is being communicated through criminalisation is the wrongfulness of the target conduct. I argue that the act of criminalisation is best understood as an indirect speech-act, which both asserts and declares normative facts, the utterance of which makes it the case that a conduct is now criminalised. Within this speech-act, wrongfulness can appear as an implicit assertion of the wrongness of the conduct, which has to be inferred by hearers from the context of utterance. The paper then briefly discusses the upshots of this model, mainly that it allows a clearer picture of how criminalisation conveys meanings, as well as leaving open the question as to whether it makes sense to think that the wrongfulness being conveyed is specifically of a moral kind.</p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140571861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-29DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09727-6
Jalo Vatjus-Anttila
{"title":"A Conceptual Framework for Voluntary Confessions and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination","authors":"Jalo Vatjus-Anttila","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09727-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09727-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140368712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-27DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09731-w
Grant Lamond
This paper raises four queries about Simester’s defective engagement with reason account of culpability found in his Fundamentals of Criminal Law: (1) the characterisation of the account in terms of moral ‘vices’; (2) the basis for identifying a vice as a ‘moral’ vice; (3) what is involved in an agent manifesting ‘insufficient care and concern’ for the interests of others; and (4) whether the account is an account of culpability generally, or is instead an account of criminal culpability, i.e., the type of culpability necessary for criminal conviction.
本文就西梅斯特在其《刑法基础》(Fundamentals of Criminal Law)一书中关于罪责的理由论述的缺陷提出了四个问题:(1)该论述以道德 "恶习 "为表征;(2)将恶习确定为 "道德 "恶习的依据;(3)行为人对他人利益表现出 "不充分的关心和关注 "涉及什么;以及(4)该论述是关于一般罪责的论述,还是关于刑事罪责的论述,即刑事定罪所需的罪责类型、刑事定罪所需的罪责类型。
{"title":"Culpability and Moral Vice","authors":"Grant Lamond","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09731-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09731-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper raises four queries about Simester’s defective engagement with reason account of culpability found in his Fundamentals of Criminal Law: (1) the characterisation of the account in terms of moral ‘vices’; (2) the basis for identifying a vice as a ‘moral’ vice; (3) what is involved in an agent manifesting ‘insufficient care and concern’ for the interests of others; and (4) whether the account is an account of culpability generally, or is instead an account of criminal culpability, i.e., the type of culpability necessary for criminal conviction.</p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140325081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-21DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09722-x
Mitchell N Berman
Andrew Simester’s new book, Fundamentals of Criminal Law: Responsibility, Culpability, and Wrongdoing, is a masterful analysis of the doctrines of the general part of the criminal law and the multiple, overlapping functions that those doctrines serve. Along the way, Simester makes explicit what criminal law theorists routinely presuppose—that the ordinary words “blameworthiness” and “culpability” pick out the same moral concept. This essay argues that this assumed equivalence is mistaken: two concepts are in play, not one. Roughly, to be blameworthy is to be justly liable to blaming practices in virtue of being at fault, and to be culpable is to act in a fashion that manifests or issues from insufficient concern for morally weighty interests. Culpability is not identical to blameworthiness, but rather a ground of blameworthiness: to be culpable is one way to be at fault, thus one way to be blameworthy. More importantly, culpability is not the exclusive ground of blameworthiness; an agent can be at fault, hence blameworthy, without being culpable. This essay defends these conceptual claims and draws forth some implications for two theses that Simester advances: that it is morally permissible to punish persons for criminal negligence and that it is unjust to punish persons who don’t deserve it.
安德鲁-西姆斯特(Andrew Simester)的新书《刑法基础》(Fundamentals of Criminal Law):责任、罪责和不法行为》是对刑法一般部分的理论以及这些理论所发挥的多重、重叠功能的精湛分析。在此过程中,西姆斯特明确了刑法理论家们通常的预设--即 "有责性 "和 "罪责 "这两个普通的词挑出了相同的道德概念。本文认为,这种假定的等同性是错误的:有两个概念在起作用,而不是一个。粗略地说,应受指责是指由于有过错而理应受到指责,而应受指责是指行为方式表现出或产生于对道德上重要利益的关注不够。可责性并不等同于可责性,而是可责性的基础:可责性是过错的一种方式,因此也是可责性的一种方式。更重要的是,应受谴责性并不是应受谴责的唯一理由;行为人可以有过错,因而应受谴责,但不一定有过错。本文对这些概念性主张进行了辩护,并对西米斯特提出的两个论点提出了一些启示,这两个论点是:因刑事过失而对人进行惩罚在道德上是允许的;对不应该受到惩罚的人进行惩罚是不公正的。
{"title":"“Blameworthiness” and “Culpability” are not Synonymous: A Sympathetic Amendment to Simester","authors":"Mitchell N Berman","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09722-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09722-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Andrew Simester’s new book</i>, Fundamentals of Criminal Law: Responsibility, Culpability, and Wrongdoing, <i>is a masterful analysis of the doctrines of the general part of the criminal law and the multiple, overlapping functions that those doctrines serve. Along the way, Simester makes explicit what criminal law theorists routinely presuppose—that the ordinary words “blameworthiness” and “culpability” pick out the same moral concept. This essay argues that this assumed equivalence is mistaken: two concepts are in play, not one. Roughly, to be blameworthy is to be justly liable to blaming practices in virtue of being at fault, and to be culpable is to act in a fashion that manifests or issues from insufficient concern for morally weighty interests. Culpability is not identical to blameworthiness, but rather a ground of blameworthiness: to be culpable is one way to be at fault, thus one way to be blameworthy. More importantly, culpability is not the exclusive ground of blameworthiness; an agent can be at fault, hence blameworthy, without being culpable. This essay defends these conceptual claims and draws forth some implications for two theses that Simester advances: that it is morally permissible to punish persons for criminal negligence and that it is unjust to punish persons who don’t deserve it.</i></p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140196535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-20DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09730-x
Lars Christie
In her latest book Spying Through a Glass Darkly: The Ethics of Espionage and Counter-Intelligence, Cécile Fabre suggests that the deception of third parties during an infiltration operation can be justified as a foreseen but unintended side effect. In this essay, I criticize this view. Such deception, I argue, is better justified paternalistically as a means of preventing third parties from becoming wrongful threats. In the second part of the article, I show that Fabre ignores an important moral complication in deception operations where agents intentionally allow others to be harmed as a means of protecting a secret. I argue that intentionally allowing harm to others as a means is a particularly problematic mode of agency which must be addressed in a normative account of espionage.
塞西尔-法布尔在她的新书《透过玻璃进行间谍活动》(Spying Through a Glass Darkly:中,塞西尔-法布尔认为,在渗透行动中欺骗第三方是一种可预见但非故意的副作用。在本文中,我对这一观点提出批评。我认为,作为防止第三方成为不法威胁的一种手段,从家长的角度来看,这种欺骗行为更有理由。在文章的第二部分,我指出法布尔忽视了欺骗行动中一个重要的道德复杂性,即代理人故意让他人受到伤害,以此作为保护秘密的手段。我认为,故意允许伤害他人作为一种手段是一种特别成问题的代理模式,必须在间谍活动的规范性论述中加以解决。
{"title":"Espionage and The Harming of Innocents","authors":"Lars Christie","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09730-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09730-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In her latest book <i>Spying Through a Glass Darkly: The Ethics of Espionage and Counter-Intelligence</i>, Cécile Fabre suggests that the deception of third parties during an infiltration operation can be justified as a foreseen but unintended side effect. In this essay, I criticize this view. Such deception, I argue, is better justified paternalistically as a means of preventing third parties from becoming wrongful threats. In the second part of the article, I show that Fabre ignores an important moral complication in deception operations where agents intentionally allow others to be harmed as a means of protecting a secret. I argue that intentionally allowing harm to others as a means is a particularly problematic mode of agency which must be addressed in a normative account of espionage.</p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140166021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-12DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09728-5
Karamvir Chadha
In Criminalizing Sex, Stuart P Green aims to provide a unified liberal theory of sexual offenses law. Green’s strategy is to provide a rational reconstruction of sexual offenses law that centres consent. In this article, I raise some doubts about whether Green fully succeeds in his aim. Nevertheless, Criminalizing Sex is an impressive book, and essential reading for anyone interested in the liberal foundations of sexual offenses law.
斯图尔特-格林(Stuart P Green)在《性犯罪化》(Criminalizing Sex)一书中,旨在为性犯罪法提供一个统一的自由主义理论。格林的策略是对以 "同意 "为中心的性犯罪法进行合理的重构。在本文中,我对格林是否完全实现了他的目标表示怀疑。尽管如此,《性犯罪化》是一本令人印象深刻的著作,对于任何对性犯罪法的自由主义基础感兴趣的人来说,都是一本必读书。
{"title":"Criminalizing Sex: Is Consent all that Matters?","authors":"Karamvir Chadha","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09728-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09728-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In <i>Criminalizing Sex</i>, Stuart P Green aims to provide a unified liberal theory of sexual offenses law. Green’s strategy is to provide a rational reconstruction of sexual offenses law that centres consent. In this article, I raise some doubts about whether Green fully succeeds in his aim. Nevertheless, <i>Criminalizing Sex</i> is an impressive book, and essential reading for anyone interested in the liberal foundations of sexual offenses law.</p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140115549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-11DOI: 10.1007/s11572-024-09729-4
Jeremy Davis
{"title":"Review of Debating Targeted Killing: Counter-Terrorism or Extrajudicial Execution? By Tamar Meisels and Jeremy Waldron (Oxford University Press, 2020)","authors":"Jeremy Davis","doi":"10.1007/s11572-024-09729-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09729-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140252716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}