Response to Christian Gudehus

Christian Gudehus’s reflections on the Editors’ Introduction to the first issue of the Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) raise a host of profound and challenging critiques for this field. I sympathize with many of Gudehus’s points, though in some instances they appear compatible with the general thrust of the research program set out by the JPR editors. These remarks, then, are meant as a friendly engagement with his own provocative points, but also an invitation to pursue a topic that is not extensively covered in either of those two contributions, namely how to theorize moral responsibility in light of the empirical advances of perpetrator research.