Results for 'legal punishment'

962 found
Order:
  1. (1 other version)Against Legal Punishment.Nathan Hanna - 2022 - In Matthew C. Altman (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook on the Philosophy of Punishment. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 559-78.
    I argue that legal punishment is morally wrong because it’s too morally risky. I first briefly explain how my argument differs from similar ones in the philosophical literature on legal punishment. Then I explain why legal punishment is morally risky, argue that it’s too morally risky, and discuss objections. In a nutshell, my argument goes as follows. Legal punishment is wrong because we can never sufficiently reduce the risk of doing wrong when (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2. Legal Punishment.Thaddeus Metz - 2004 - In Christopher Roederer & Darrel Moellendorf (eds.), Jurisprudence. Lansdowne [South Africa]: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 555-87.
    We seek to outline philosophical answers to the questions of why punish, whom to punish and how much to punish, with illustrations from the South African legal system. We begin by examining the differences between forward- and backward-looking moral theories of legal punishment, their strengths and also their weaknesses. Then, we ascertain to which theory, if any, contemporary South Africa largely conforms. Finally, we discuss several matters of controversy in South Africa in the context of forward- and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3. It’s Only Natural: Legal Punishment and the Natural Right to Punish.Nathan Hanna - 2012 - Social Theory and Practice 38 (4):598-616.
    Some philosophers defend legal punishment by appealing to a natural right to punish wrongdoers, a right people would have in a state of nature. Many of these philosophers argue that legal punishment can be justified by transferring this right to the state. I’ll argue that such a right may not be transferrable to the state because such a right may not survive the transition out of anarchy. A compelling reason for the natural right claim – that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4. Punishing Artificial Intelligence: Legal Fiction or Science Fiction.Alexander Sarch & Ryan Abbott - 2019 - UC Davis Law Review 53:323-384.
    Whether causing flash crashes in financial markets, purchasing illegal drugs, or running over pedestrians, AI is increasingly engaging in activity that would be criminal for a natural person, or even an artificial person like a corporation. We argue that criminal law falls short in cases where an AI causes certain types of harm and there are no practically or legally identifiable upstream criminal actors. This Article explores potential solutions to this problem, focusing on holding AI directly criminally liable where it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5. Judicial Incoherence, Capital Punishment, and the Legalization of Torture.Guus Duindam - 2019 - Georgetown Law Journal Online 108 (74).
    This brief essay responds to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bucklew v. Precythe. It contends that the argument relied upon by the Court in that decision, as well as in Glossip v. Gross, is either trivial or demonstrably invalid. Hence, this essay provides a nonmoral reason to oppose the Court’s recent capital punishment decisions. The Court’s position that petitioners seeking to challenge a method of execution must identify a readily available and feasible alternative execution protocol is untenable, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Blame, punishment and intermediate options.Martin Smith - 2024 - Edinburgh Law Review 28 (2):235-241.
    In this paper I explore some ideas inspired by Federico Picinali’s Justice In-Between: A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts. Picinali makes a case for the introduction of intermediate options in criminal trials – verdicts with consequences that are harsher than an acquittal, but not so harsh as a conviction. From a certain perspective, the absence of intermediate options in criminal trials is puzzling – out of kilter with much of our everyday decision-making and, perhaps, with the recommendations of expected utility (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Is punishment backward? On neurointerventions and forward‐looking moral responsibility.Przemysław Zawadzki - 2022 - Bioethics 37 (2):183-191.
    This article focuses on justified responses to “immoral” behavior and crimes committed by patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. Such patients could be held morally responsible in the basic desert sense—the one that serves as a justification of severe practices such as backward‐looking moral outrage, condemnation, and legal punishment—as long as they possess certain compatibilist capabilities that have traditionally served as the quintessence of free will, that is, reasons‐responsiveness; attributability; answerability; the abilities to act in accordance with moral reasons, second‐order (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. Hate and Punishment.Antti Kauppinen - 2014 - Journal of Interpersonal Violence:1-19.
    According to legal expressivism, neither crime nor punishment consists merely in intentionally imposing some kind of harm on another. Crime and punishment also have an expressive aspect. They are what they are in part because they enact attitudes toward others—in the case of crime, some kind of disrespect, at least, and in the case of punishment, society’s condemnation or reprobation. Punishment is justified, at least in part, because (and when) it uniquely expresses fitting condemnation or (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9. Privacy and Punishment.Mark Tunick - 2013 - Social Theory and Practice 39 (4):643-668.
    Philosophers have focused on why privacy is of value to innocent people with nothing to hide. I argue that for people who do have something to hide, such as a past crime, or bad behavior in a public place, informational privacy can be important for avoiding undeserved or disproportionate non-legal punishment. Against the objection that one cannot expect privacy in public facts, I argue that I might have a legitimate privacy interest in public facts that are not readily (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  10. Justifying punishment in intercultural contexts: Whose Norms? Which Values?Duncan Ivison - 1999 - In Matt Matravers (ed.), Punishment and Political Theory. Hart Publishing. pp. 88-107.
    An exploration of RA Duff's 'communicative theory of punishment' in contexts of deep legal and cultural pluralism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Capital Punishment.Benjamin S. Yost - 2017 - In Mortimer Sellers & Stephan Kirste (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer. pp. 1-9.
    Capital punishment—the legally authorized killing of a criminal offender by an agent of the state for the commission of a crime—stands in special need of moral justification. This is because execution is a particularly severe punishment. Execution is different in kind from monetary and custodial penalties in an obvious way: execution causes the death of an offender. While fines and incarceration set back some of one’s interests, death eliminates the possibility of setting and pursuing ends. While fines and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. Punishment and Ethical Self-Cultivation in Confucius and Aristotle.Matthew D. Walker - 2019 - Law and Literature 31 (2):259-275.
    Confucius and Aristotle both put a primacy on the task of ethical self-cultivation. Unlike Aristotle, who emphasizes the instrumental value of legal punishment for cultivation’s sake, Confucius raises worries about the practice of punishment. Punishment, and the threat of punishment, Confucius suggests, actually threatens to warp human motivation and impede our ethical development. In this paper, I examine Confucius’ worries about legal punishment, and consider how a dialogue on punishment between Confucius and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. The Forfeiture Theory of Punishment: Surviving Boonin’s Objections.Stephen Kershnar - 2010 - Public Affairs Quarterly 24 (4):319-334.
    In this paper, I set out a version of the Forfeiture Theory of Punishment. Forfeiture Theory: Legal punishment is just or permissible because offenders forfeit their rights.On this account, offenders forfeit their rights because they infringed on someone’s rights. My strategy is to provide a version of the Forfeiture Theory and then to argue that it survives a number of initially intuitive seeming objections, most having their origins in the recent work of David Boonin.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  14. Censure theory and intuitions about punishment.Thaddeus Metz - 2000 - Law and Philosophy 19 (4):491-512.
    Many philosophers and laypeople have the following two intuitions about legal punishment: the state has a pro tanto moral reason to punish all those guilty of breaking a just law and to do so in proportion to their guilt. Accepting that there can be overriding considerations not to punish all the guilty in proportion to their guilt, many philosophers still consider it a strike against any theory if it does not imply that there is always a supportive moral (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  15. Punishing (Not)Innocent Persons?Andrei Nekhaev - 2023 - Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity 8 (3):73–94.
    This article provides a critical analysis of Mark Walker’s type-token theory. This theory purports to describe, explain, and justify the mechanism by which moral and legal responsibility can be attributed to exact and complete duplicates of persons. However, Walker’s defence of the view of persons as abstract entities is met with several metaphysical objections. Alternatively, a new approach to moral and legal responsibility is developed based on principles of agency law, in which the conception of a guilty person (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability.Mark R. Reiff - 2005 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
    This book is the first comprehensive study of the meaning and measure of enforceability. While we have long debated what restraints should govern the conduct of our social life, we have paid relatively little attention to the question of what it means to make a restraint enforceable. Focusing on the enforceability of legal rights but also addressing the enforceability of moral rights and social conventions, Mark Reiff explains how we use punishment and compensation to make restraints operative in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  17. Punishing Cruelly: Punishment, Cruelty, and Mercy.Paulo D. Barrozo - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (1):67-84.
    What is cruelty? How and why does it matter? What do the legal rejection of cruelty and the requirements of mercy entail? This essay asks these questions of Lucius Seneca, who first articulated an agent-based conception of cruelty in the context of punishment. The hypothesis is submitted that the answers to these questions offered in Seneca's De clementia constitute one of the turning points in the evolution of practical reason in law. I conclude, however, by arguing that even (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  18. Contractualism and Punishment.Hon-Lam Li - 2015 - Criminal Justice Ethics 34 (2):177-209.
    T. M. Scanlon’s contractualism is a meta-ethical theory that explains moral motivation and also provides a conception of how to carry out moral deliberation. It supports non-consequentialism – the theory that both consequences and deontological considerations are morally significant in moral deliberation. Regarding the issue of punishment, non-consequentialism allows us to take account of the need for deterrence as well as principles of fairness, justice, and even desert. Moreover, Scanlonian contractualism accounts for permissibility in terms of justifiability: An act (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19. Natural Punishment.Raff Donelson - 2022 - North Carolina Law Review 100 (2):557-600.
    A man, carrying a gun in his waistband, robs a food vendor. In making his escape, the gun discharges, critically injuring the robber. About such instances, it is common to think, “he got what he deserved.” This Article seeks to explore cases like that—cases of “natural punishment.” Natural punishment occurs when a wrongdoer faces serious harm that results from her wrongdoing and not from anyone seeking retribution against her. The Article proposes that U.S. courts follow their peers and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Punishment in the Executive Suite: Moral Responsibility, Causal Responsibility, and Financial Crime.Mark R. Reiff - 2017 - In Lisa Herzog (ed.), Just Financial Markets?: Finance in a Just Society. Oxford University Press. pp. 125-153.
    Despite the enormity of the financial losses flowing from the 2008 financial crisis and the outrageousness of the conduct that led up to it, almost no individual involved has been prosecuted for criminal conduct, much less actually gone to prison. What this chapter argues is that the failure to punish those in management for their role in this misconduct stems from a misunderstanding of the need to prove that they personally knew of this wrongdoing and harbored an intent to defraud. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  21. Justice without Retribution: An Epistemic Argument against Retributive Criminal Punishment.Gregg D. Caruso - 2018 - Neuroethics 13 (1):13-28.
    Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  22. Kant on capital punishment and suicide.Attila Ataner - 2006 - Kant Studien 97 (4):452-482.
    From a juridical standpoint, Kant ardently upholds the state's right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the law of retribution. At the same time, from an ethical standpoint, Kant maintains a strict proscription against suicide. The author proposes that this latter position is inconsistent with and undercuts the former. However, Kant's division between external (juridical) and internal (moral) lawgiving is an obstacle to any argument against Kant's endorsement of capital punishment based on his own disapprobation of suicide. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  23. Rescuing fair-play as a justification for punishment.Matt K. Stichter - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):73-81.
    The debate over whether ‘fair-play’ can serve as a justification for legal punishment has recently resumed with an exchange between Richard Dagger and Antony Duff. According to the fair-play theorist, criminals deserve punishment for breaking the law because in so doing the criminal upsets a fair distribution of benefits and burdens, and punishment rectifies this unfairness. Critics frequently level two charges against this idea. The first is that it often gives the wrong explanation of what makes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24. Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment?: Thom Brooks: Punishment. Routledge, New York, 2012, 282 pp., ISBN 978-0-415-43181-1, 978-0-415-43182-8.Mark Tunick - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (3):611-628.
    Thom Brooks criticizes utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment but argues that utilitarian and retributive goals can be incorporated into a coherent and unified theory of punitive restoration, according to which punishment is a means of reintegrating criminals into society and restoring rights. I point to some difficulties with Brooks’ criticisms of retributive and utilitarian theories, and argue that his theory of punitive restoration is not unified or coherent. I argue further that a theory attempting to capture the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  25. The Consent Solution to Punishment and the Explicit Denial Objection.Miroslav Imbrisevic - 2010 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 25 (2):211-224.
    Recently, David Boonin has put forward several objections to Carlos S. Nino's 'Consensual Theory of Punishment'. In this paper I will defend Nino against the 'explicit denial objection'. I will discuss whether Boonin's interpretation of Nino as a tacit consent theorist is right. I will argue that the offender's consent is neither tacit nor express, but a special category of implicit consent. Further, for Nino the legal-normative consequences of an act (of crime) are 'irrevocable', i.e. one cannot (expressly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  26. What Is Punishment?Frej Klem Thomsen - manuscript
    Since the middle of the 20th century, philosophers and legal scholars have debated the precise definition of punishment. This chapter surveys the debate, identifies six potential conditions of punishment, and critically reviews each of them: 1) the response condition, which holds that punishment must be in response to wrongdoing, 2) the culpability condition, which holds that punishment must be of a person morally responsible for wrongdoing, 3) the authority condition, which holds that punishment must (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. The Irrevocability of Capital Punishment.Benjamin S. Yost - 2011 - Journal of Social Philosophy 42 (3):321-340.
    One of the many arguments against capital punishment is that execution is irrevocable. At its most simple, the argument has three premises. First, legal institutions should abolish penalties that do not admit correction of error, unless there are no alternative penalties. Second, irrevocable penalties are those that do not admit of correction. Third, execution is irrevocable. It follows that capital punishment should be abolished. This paper argues for the third premise. One might think that the truth of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  28. Belief and Death: Capital Punishment and the Competence-for-Execution Requirement.David M. Adams - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (1):17-30.
    A curious and comparatively neglected element of death penalty jurisprudence in America is my target in this paper. That element concerns the circumstances under which severely mentally disabled persons, incarcerated on death row, may have their sentences carried out. Those circumstances are expressed in a part of the law which turns out to be indefensible. This legal doctrine—competence-for-execution —holds that a condemned, death-row inmate may not be killed if, at the time of his scheduled execution, he lacks an awareness (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Prison Violence as Punishment.William L. Bell - 2024 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 27 (4):541-553.
    The United States carceral system, as currently designed and implemented, is widely considered to be an immoral and inhumane system of criminal punishment. There are a number of pressing issues related to this topic, but in this essay, I will focus upon the problem of prison violence. Inadequate supervision has resulted in unsafe prison conditions where inmates are regularly threatened with rape, assault, and other forms of physical violence. Such callous disregard and exposure to unreasonable risk constitutes a severe (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. The Legitimacy and Limits of Punishing "Bad Samaritans".Luke William Hunt - 2021 - University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 31 (3):355-376.
    There are often public calls to codify moral sentiments after failures to help others, and recent tragedies have renewed interest in one’s legal duty to aid another. This Article examines the moral underpinnings and legitimacy of so-called “Bad Samaritan” laws—laws that criminalize failures to aid others in emergency situations. Part I examines the theoretical backdrop of duties imposed by Bad Samaritan laws, including their relationship with various moral duties to aid. This leads to the analysis in Part II, which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  93
    Hybrid Theory of Legal Statements and Disagreement on the Content of Law.M. Wieczorkowski - manuscript
    Disagreement is a pervasive feature of human discourse and a crucial force in shaping our social reality. From mundane squabbles about matters of taste to high-stakes disputes about law and public policy, the way we express and navigate disagreement plays a central role in both our personal and political lives. Legal discourse, in particular, is rife with disagreement - it is the very bread and butter of courtroom argument and legal scholarship alike. Consider a debate between two (...) philosophers, Ronald and Herbert, about the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. Ronald asserts: ‘It is the law that capital punishment is prohibited’. In response, Herbert states: ‘It is not the law that capital punishment is prohibited’. We intuitively think Ronald and Herbert are disagreeing, which reveals in the fact that they are licensed to use ex¬pressions like no (it isn’t) and nuh-uh when responding to their opponent’s claim. But despite the ubiquity and significance of legal disagreement, its precise nature remains elusive. This chapter discusses what exactly is going on when two people disagree about what the law requires, and how can hybrid theory may answer this question. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Liberalism and the general justifiability of punishment.Nathan Hanna - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (3):325-349.
    I argue that contemporary liberal theory cannot give a general justification for the institution or practice of punishment, i.e., a justification that would hold across a broad range of reasonably realistic conditions. I examine the general justifications offered by three prominent contemporary liberal theorists and show how their justifications fail in light of the possibility of an alternative to punishment. I argue that, because of their common commitments regarding the nature of justification, these theorists have decisive reasons to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  33. All Human Beings Are Equal, But Some Human Beings Are More Equal Than Others: A Case Study On Punishing Abortion-Performing Doctors But Not Abortion-Procuring Women.Rob Lovering - 2021 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 27 (2):56-81.
    In this paper, I present a case study on a recent attempt at implementing what I refer to as the “Pro-lifer’s Asymmetrical Punishment View” (PAPV), the view that people should be legally punished for performing abortions whereas women should not be so punished for procuring abortions. While doing so, I argue that the endeavor, which took place in the state of Alabama, is incoherent relative to the conjunction of its purported underlying moral rationale and the Alabama criminal code. I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Children's and adults' understanding of punishment and the criminal justice system.James Dunlea - 2020 - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 87.
    Adults' judgments regarding punishment can have important social ramifications. However, the origins of these judgments remain unclear. Using the legal system as an example domain in which people receive punishment, the current work employed two complementary approaches to examine how punishment-related concepts emerge. Study 1 tested both 6- to 8-year-olds and adults to ascertain which components of “end-state” pun- ishment concepts emerge early in development and remain stable over time, and which components of pun- ishment concepts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35. “Punishing Violent Thoughts: Islamic Dissent and Thoreauvian Disobedience in post-9/11 America,”.Rebecca Gould - 2017 - Journal of American Studies:online first.
    American Muslims increasingly negotiate their relation to a government that is suspicious of Islam, yet which is legally obligated to recognize them as rights-bearing citizens. To better understand how the post-9/11 state is reshaping American Islam, I examine the case of Muslim American dissident Tarek Mehanna, sentenced to seventeen years in prison for providing material support for terrorism, on the basis of his controversial words (USA v. Mehanna et al, 2012). I situate Mehanna’s writing and reflections within a long history (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. How Should Free Will Skeptics Pursue Legal Change?Marcelo Fischborn - 2017 - Neuroethics 11 (1):47-54.
    Free will skepticism is the view that people never truly deserve to be praised, blamed, or punished for what they do. One challenge free will skeptics face is to explain how criminality could be dealt with given their skepticism. This paper critically examines the prospects of implementing legal changes concerning crime and punishment derived from the free will skeptical views developed by Derk Pereboom and Gregg Caruso. One central aspect of the changes their views require is a concern (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  37. Facing the Consequences.Nathan Hanna - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (3):589-604.
    According to deterrence justifications of legal punishment, legal punishment is justified at least in part because it deters offenses. These justifications rely on important empirical assumptions, e.g., that non-punitive enforcement can't deter or that it can't deter enough. I’ll challenge these assumptions and argue that extant deterrence justifications of legal punishment fail. In the process, I examine contemporary deterrence research and argue that it provides no support for these justifications.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  38. Injustice and the right to punish.Göran Duus-Otterström & Erin I. Kelly - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (2):e12565.
    Injustice can undermine the standing states have to blame criminal offenders, and this raises a difficulty for a range of punishment theories that depend on a state's moral authority. When a state lacks the moral authority that flows from political legitimacy, its right to punish criminal lawbreakers cannot depend on a systematic claim about the legitimacy of the law. Instead, an unjust state is permitted to punish only criminal acts whose wrongness is established directly by morality, and only when (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  39. Responsibility and revision: a Levinasian argument for the abolition of capital punishment.Benjamin S. Yost - 2011 - Continental Philosophy Review 44 (1):41-64.
    Most readers believe that it is difficult, verging on the impossible, to extract concrete prescriptions from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Although this view is largely correct, Levinas’ philosophy can, with some assistance, generate specific duties on the part of legal actors. In this paper, I argue that the fundamental premises of Levinas’ theory of justice can be used to construct a prohibition against capital punishment. After analyzing Levinas’ concepts of justice, responsibility, and interruption, I turn toward his (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. The Legal Research and Issue of Death Penalty.Kiyooung Kim - 2015 - European Academic Research 3 (6):6235-6261.
    The abolition of death penalty is one commonplace issue over global jurisdictions. Nevertheless, it is also true that a surfeit of research has been dealt either in any specific way of legal research or general method of social science. This tends to create a track of practice that they approach the issue in its own national standard of research or discrete logic and narrative. The author proposes an orthodox of legal research by exemplifying the issue of death penalty. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Medical Ethics in Qiṣāṣ (Eye-for-an-Eye) Punishment: An Islamic View; an Examination of Acid Throwing.Hossein Dabbagh, Amir Alishahi Tabriz & Harold G. Koenig - 2016 - Journal of Religion and Health 55 (4):1426–1432.
    Physicians in Islamic countries might be requested to participate in the Islamic legal code of qiṣāṣ, in which the victim or family has the right to an eye-for-an-eye retaliation. Qiṣāṣ is only used as a punishment in the case of murder or intentional physical injury. In situations such as throwing acid, the national legal system of some Islamic countries asks for assistance from physicians, because the punishment should be identical to the crime. The perpetrator could not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Doesn't everybody jaywalk? On codified rules that are seldom followed and selectively punished.Jordan Wylie & Ana Gantman - 2023 - Cognition 231 (C):105323.
    Rules are meant to apply equally to all within their jurisdiction. However, some rules are frequently broken without consequence for most. These rules are only occasionally enforced, often at the discretion of a third-party observer. We propose that these rules—whose violations are frequent, and enforcement is rare—constitute a unique subclass of explicitly codified rules, which we call ‘phantom rules’ (e.g., proscribing jaywalking). Their apparent punishability is ambiguous and particularly susceptible to third-party motives. Across six experiments, (N = 1440) we validated (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43. The Philosophy of Legal Proof.Lewis Ross - 2024 - Cambridge University Press.
    Criminal courts make decisions that can remove the liberty and even life of those accused. Civil trials can cause the bankruptcy of companies employing thousands of people, asylum seekers being deported, or children being placed into state care. Selecting the right standards when deciding legal cases is of utmost importance in giving those affected a fair deal. This Element is an introduction to the philosophy of legal proof. It is organised around five questions. First, it introduces the standards (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. A Theory that Beats the Theory? Lineages, the Growth of Signs, and Dynamic Legal Interpretation.Marcin Matczak - manuscript
    Legal philosophers distinguish between a static and a dynamic interpretation of law. The former assumes that the meaning of the words used in a legal text is set at the moment of its enactment and does not change with time. The latter allows the interpreters to update the meaning and apply a contemporary understanding to the text. The dispute between these competing theories has significant ramifications for social and political life. To take an example, depending on the approach, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  45. Dangerous Psychopaths: Criminally Responsible But Not Morally Responsible, Subject to Criminal Punishment And to Preventive Detention.Ken Levy - 2011 - San Diego Law Review 48:1299-1395.
    I argue for two propositions. First, contrary to the common wisdom, we may justly punish individuals who are not morally responsible for their crimes. Psychopaths – individuals who lack the capacity to feel sympathy – help to prove this point. Scholars are increasingly arguing that psychopaths are not morally responsible for their behavior because they suffer from a neurological disorder that makes it impossible for them to understand, and therefore be motivated by, moral reasons. These same scholars then infer from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  46. Is it Wrong to Criminalize and Punish Psychopaths?Andrea L. Glenn, Adrian Raine & William S. Laufer - 2011 - Emotion Review 3 (3):302-304.
    Increasing evidence from psychology and neuroscience suggests that emotion plays an important and sometimes critical role in moral judgment and moral behavior. At the same time, there is increasing psychological and neuroscientific evidence that brain regions critical in emotional and moral capacity are impaired in psychopaths. We ask how the criminal law should accommodate these two streams of research, in light of a new normative and legal account of the criminal responsibility of psychopaths.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  47. Statutes of Limitations and Personal Identity.Christian Mott - 2018 - In Tania Lombrozo, Joshua Knobe & Shaun Nichols (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Volume Two. Oxford University Press. pp. 243-269.
    Legal theorists have proposed several theories to justify statutes of limitations in the criminal law, but none of these normative theories is generally accepted. This chapter investigates the related descriptive question as to whether ordinary people have the intuition that legal punishment becomes less appropriate as time passes from the date of the offense and, if they do, what factors play a role in these intuitions. Five studies demonstrate that there is an intuitive statute of limitations on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  48. L’indignation, le mépris et le pardon dans l’émergence du cadre légal d’Occupy Geneva.Frédéric Minner - 2018 - Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales 56 (2):133-159.
    Cet article s’intéresse au problème de la maintenance, c’est-à-dire au moment où les membres d’un collectif social tentent d’assurer dans le temps l’existence de leur collectif en instituant des règles pour réguler leurs comportements. Ce problème se pose avec acuité lorsque certains membres ne respectent pas ces règles communes. Pour maintenir la coopération sociale, les membres peuvent décider d’instituer des règles secondaires visant à sanctionner les transgressions des règles primaires déjà établies. La maintenance d’un collectif peut ainsi reposer sur l’émergence (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  49. The Legalization of Drugs. [REVIEW]Kalle Grill - 2007 - Theoria 73 (4):248-255.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Minds, Brains, and Desert: On the relevance of neuroscience for retributive punishment.Alva Stråge - 2019 - Dissertation, University of Gothenburg
    It is a common idea, and an element in many legal systems, that people can deserve punishment when they commit criminal (or immoral) actions. A standard philosophical objection to this retributivist idea about punishment is that if human choices and actions are determined by previous events and the laws of nature, then we are not free in the sense required to be morally responsible for our actions, and therefore cannot deserve blame or punishment. It has recently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 962