When Should the Master Answer? Respondeat Superior and the Criminal Law

Criminal Law and Philosophy 18 (1):89-108 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine conferring liability from one party onto another because the latter stands in some relationship of authority over the former. Though originally a doctrine of tort law, for the past century it has been used within the criminal law, especially to the end of securing criminal liability for corporations. Here, I argue that on at least one prominent conception of criminal responsibility, we are not justified in using this doctrine in this way. Firms are not answerable for the crimes committed by their employees, because firms cannot answer as to why the crime was committed; they lack the authority to offer the employee’s reasons for action. Though this rules out respondeat superior as a general principle, I show contexts in which vicarious liability is still appropriate in the criminal law, and I respond to a number of other concerns raised by this picture.

Author's Profile

Kenneth Silver
Trinity College, Dublin

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-02-10

Downloads
382 (#55,958)

6 months
148 (#32,783)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?