Notwithstanding the demands of retributive desert, strict criminal liability is sometimes defensible when the strict liability pertains, not to whether conduct is to be criminalized at all, but to the seriousness of the actor’s crime. Suppose an actor commits an intentional assault or rape, and accidentally brings about a death. Punishing the actor more seriously because the death resulted is sometimes justifiable, even absent proof of his independent culpability as to the death. But what punishment is proportionate for such an actor? Should he be punished as harshly as an intentional or knowing killer
Before the middle of the 19th century it was generally stated that a criminal conviction could not b...
The conventional mental state or culpability categories recognized in the criminal law are purpose, ...
The law has long recognized a presumption against criminal strict liability. This Note situates that...
Notwithstanding the demands of retributive desert, strict criminal liability is sometimes defensible...
Notwithstanding the demands of retributive desert, strict criminal liability is sometimes defensible...
Theories of moral desert focus only on the personal culpability of the agent to determine the amount...
Efforts to explain when and why the state can legitimately impose retributive punishment on an actor...
The conventional mental state or culpability categories recognized in the criminal law are purpose, ...
In criminal law, the mental state of the defendant is a crucial determinant of the grade of crime th...
It is easy to understand the apparent appeal of strict liability to policymakers and legal reformers...
In our view, an actor deserves punishment when he demonstrates insufficient concern for others, that...
Punishing a person based on low unconditional credence in their deservingness to be punished is cons...
In this book chapter we give a definition of inchoate crimes and argue that inchoate crimes, so defi...
This discussion focuses on those jurisdictions that have used ordinary negligence to find criminal l...
Can an actor justify criminal conduct when he was criminally culpable in creating the conditions mak...
Before the middle of the 19th century it was generally stated that a criminal conviction could not b...
The conventional mental state or culpability categories recognized in the criminal law are purpose, ...
The law has long recognized a presumption against criminal strict liability. This Note situates that...
Notwithstanding the demands of retributive desert, strict criminal liability is sometimes defensible...
Notwithstanding the demands of retributive desert, strict criminal liability is sometimes defensible...
Theories of moral desert focus only on the personal culpability of the agent to determine the amount...
Efforts to explain when and why the state can legitimately impose retributive punishment on an actor...
The conventional mental state or culpability categories recognized in the criminal law are purpose, ...
In criminal law, the mental state of the defendant is a crucial determinant of the grade of crime th...
It is easy to understand the apparent appeal of strict liability to policymakers and legal reformers...
In our view, an actor deserves punishment when he demonstrates insufficient concern for others, that...
Punishing a person based on low unconditional credence in their deservingness to be punished is cons...
In this book chapter we give a definition of inchoate crimes and argue that inchoate crimes, so defi...
This discussion focuses on those jurisdictions that have used ordinary negligence to find criminal l...
Can an actor justify criminal conduct when he was criminally culpable in creating the conditions mak...
Before the middle of the 19th century it was generally stated that a criminal conviction could not b...
The conventional mental state or culpability categories recognized in the criminal law are purpose, ...
The law has long recognized a presumption against criminal strict liability. This Note situates that...