8 found
Order:
See also
Nicole A. Vincent
University of Technology Sydney
  1. On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility.Nicole A. Vincent - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
    Various authors debate the question of whether neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility. However, a plethora of different techniques and technologies, each with their own abilities and drawbacks, lurks beneath the label “neuroscience”; and in criminal law responsibility is not a single, unitary and generic concept, but it is rather a syndrome of at least six different concepts. Consequently, there are at least six different responsibility questions that the criminal law asks—at least one for each responsibility concept—and, I will suggest, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  2. Responsibility: Distinguishing Virtue From Capacity.Nicole A. Vincent - 2009 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):111-26.
    Garrath Williams claims that truly responsible people must possess a “capacity … to respond [appropriately] to normative demands” (2008:462). However, there are people whom we would normally praise for their responsibility despite the fact that they do not yet possess such a capacity (e.g. consistently well-behaved young children), and others who have such capacity but who are still patently irresponsible (e.g. some badly-behaved adults). Thus, I argue that to qualify for the accolade “a responsible person” one need not possess such (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  3. What Do You Mean I Should Take Responsibility for My Own Ill Health?Nicole A. Vincent - 2009 - Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy 1 (1):39-51.
    Luck egalitarians think that considerations of responsibility can excuse departures from strict equality. However critics argue that allowing responsibility to play this role has objectionably harsh consequences. Luck egalitarians usually respond either by explaining why that harshness is not excessive, or by identifying allegedly legitimate exclusions from the default responsibility-tracking rule to tone down that harshness. And in response, critics respectively deny that this harshness is not excessive, or they argue that those exclusions would be ineffective or lacking in justification. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4. Equality, Responsibility and Talent Slavery.Nicole A. Vincent - 2006 - Imprints 9 (2):118-39.
    Egalitarians must address two questions: i. What should there be an equality of, which concerns the currency of the ‘equalisandum’; and ii. How should this thing be allocated to achieve the so-called equal distribution? A plausible initial composite answer to these two questions is that resources should be allocated in accordance with choice, because this way the resulting distribution of the said equalisandum will ‘track responsibility’ — responsibility will be tracked in the sense that only we will be responsible for (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5. Book Review of "Torts, Egalitarianism and Distributive Justice" by Tsachi Keren-Paz. [REVIEW]Nicole A. Vincent - 2008 - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 33:199-204.
    In "Torts, Egalitarianism and Distributive Justice" , Tsachi Keren-Paz presents impressingly detailed analysis that bolsters the case in favour of incremental tort law reform. However, although this book's greatest strength is the depth of analysis offered, at the same time supporters of radical law reform proposals may interpret the complexity of the solution that is offered as conclusive proof that tort law can only take adequate account of egalitarian aims at an unacceptably high cost.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Responsibility, Compensation and Accident Law Reform.Nicole A. Vincent - 2007 - Dissertation, University of Adelaide
    This thesis considers two allegations which conservatives often level at no-fault systems — namely, that responsibility is abnegated under no-fault systems, and that no-fault systems under- and over-compensate. I argue that although each of these allegations can be satisfactorily met – the responsibility allegation rests on the mistaken assumption that to properly take responsibility for our actions we must accept liability for those losses for which we are causally responsible; and the compensation allegation rests on the mistaken assumption that tort (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7. Compensation for Mere Exposure to Risk.Nicole A. Vincent - 2005 - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 29:89-101.
    It could be argued that tort law is failing, and arguably an example of this failure is the recent public liability and insurance (‘PL&I’) crisis. A number of solutions have been proposed, but ultimately the chosen solution should address whatever we take to be the cause of this failure. On one account, the PL&I crisis is a result of an unwarranted expansion of the scope of tort law. Proponents of this position sometimes argue that the duty of care owed by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. What is at Stake in Taking Responsibility? Lessons From Third-Party Property Insurance.Nicole A. Vincent - 2001 - [Journal (Paginated)] (in Press) 20 (1):75-94.
    Third-party property insurance (TPPI) protects insured drivers who accidentally damage an expensive car from the threat of financial ruin. Perhaps more importantly though, TPPI also protects the victims whose losses might otherwise go uncompensated. Ought responsible drivers therefore take out TPPI? This paper begins by enumerating some reasons for why a rational person might believe that they have a moral obligation to take out TPPI. It will be argued that if what is at stake in taking responsibility is the ability (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark