不要放弃模范刑法典!通过西蒙斯的反思来思考

Kimberly Kessler Ferzan
{"title":"不要放弃模范刑法典!通过西蒙斯的反思来思考","authors":"Kimberly Kessler Ferzan","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2002.6.1.185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Criminal law theorists argue that culpability is a prerequisite for blameworthiness and responsibility. The definition above renders our endeavor circular. What does it mean to say someone is culpable? For some time, we thought we knew the answer to this question. Culpability was about choosing to commit a wrong, and the nature of this choice determined the degree of culpability. This is the view of the Model Penal Code. Yet, as this Symposium reveals, our consensus has devolved to dissensus. Criminal law theorists are now challenging the conventional framework’s ability to capture culpability adequately. These theorists argue that our current culpability theory pays insufficient attention to the motives, emotions, and desires of the actor and that these elements are a constitutive part of culpability.","PeriodicalId":344882,"journal":{"name":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking\",\"authors\":\"Kimberly Kessler Ferzan\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/NCLR.2002.6.1.185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Criminal law theorists argue that culpability is a prerequisite for blameworthiness and responsibility. The definition above renders our endeavor circular. What does it mean to say someone is culpable? For some time, we thought we knew the answer to this question. Culpability was about choosing to commit a wrong, and the nature of this choice determined the degree of culpability. This is the view of the Model Penal Code. Yet, as this Symposium reveals, our consensus has devolved to dissensus. Criminal law theorists are now challenging the conventional framework’s ability to capture culpability adequately. These theorists argue that our current culpability theory pays insufficient attention to the motives, emotions, and desires of the actor and that these elements are a constitutive part of culpability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Buffalo Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Buffalo Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2002.6.1.185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buffalo Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2002.6.1.185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

刑法理论家认为,罪责是罪责和责任的先决条件。上述定义使我们的努力循环往复。说某人有罪是什么意思?有一段时间,我们以为我们知道这个问题的答案。罪责是指选择犯错误,而这种选择的性质决定了罪责的程度。这是《示范刑法典》的观点。然而,正如这次研讨会所揭示的那样,我们的共识已经变成了分歧。刑法理论家现在正在挑战传统框架充分捕捉罪责的能力。这些理论家认为,我们目前的罪责理论对行为人的动机、情感和欲望关注不足,而这些因素是罪责的组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking
Criminal law theorists argue that culpability is a prerequisite for blameworthiness and responsibility. The definition above renders our endeavor circular. What does it mean to say someone is culpable? For some time, we thought we knew the answer to this question. Culpability was about choosing to commit a wrong, and the nature of this choice determined the degree of culpability. This is the view of the Model Penal Code. Yet, as this Symposium reveals, our consensus has devolved to dissensus. Criminal law theorists are now challenging the conventional framework’s ability to capture culpability adequately. These theorists argue that our current culpability theory pays insufficient attention to the motives, emotions, and desires of the actor and that these elements are a constitutive part of culpability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Murder After the Merger: A Commentary on Finkelstein Group Violence and Group Vengeance: Toward a Retributivist Theory of International Criminal Law Benthamite Reflections on Codification of the General Principles of Criminal Liability: Towards the Panopticon The Politics of Grace: On the Moral Justification of Executive Clemency Toward a Better Categorical Balance of the Costs and Benefits of the Exclusionary Rule
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1