首页    期刊浏览 2024年12月03日 星期二
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Asking (Different) Responsibility Questions: Responsibility and Non-Resposibility in Criminal Law
  • 作者:Arlie Loughnan
  • 期刊名称:Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
  • 印刷版ISSN:1894-4183
  • 出版年度:2016
  • 卷号:4
  • 期号:1
  • 页码:25-47
  • DOI:10.15845/bjclcj.v4i1.1025
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:Faculty of Law, University of Bergen
  • 摘要:Legal scholarly analysis of criminal responsibility is typically assumed to encompass non-responsibility. This reflects the influence of the legal-philosophical tradition on the study of criminal responsibility, in which responsibility and non-responsibility are alternative outcomes of the same moral-evaluative enquiry of calling individuals to account for their criminal conduct. This article questions that operative assumption. A close examination of four dimensions of responsibility and non-responsibility – the bases for ascription of criminal responsibility and non-responsibility, attendant rules of evidence and procedure, the temporal logics of responsibility and non-responsibility, and what I call the effects of ascribing responsibility and non-responsibility – reveals meaningful differences between responsibility and non-responsibility practices in criminal law. This article sketches out these differences and makes a case for taking them seriously, on the basis that doing so may serve as a corrective to existing scholarly accounts of criminal responsibility.
  • 其他摘要:Legal scholarly analysis of criminal responsibility is typically assumed to encompass non-responsibility. This reflects the influence of the legal-philosophical tradition on the study of criminal responsibility, in which responsibility and non-responsibility are alternative outcomes of the same moral-evaluative enquiry of calling individuals to account for their criminal conduct. This article questions that operative assumption. A close examination of four dimensions of responsibility and non-responsibility – the bases for ascription of criminal responsibility and non-responsibility, attendant rules of evidence and procedure, the temporal logics of responsibility and non-responsibility, and what I call the effects of ascribing responsibility and non-responsibility – reveals meaningful differences between responsibility and non-responsibility practices in criminal law. This article sketches out these differences and makes a case for taking them seriously, on the basis that doing so may serve as a corrective to existing scholarly accounts of criminal responsibility.
Loading...
联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有