FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1497508068> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1497508068 abstract "For nearly a quarter of a century, the distinction between justification and excuse has proven almost an obsession among Anglo-American theorists of the criminal law. And the attention has appeared to pay dividends, as it has become one of the rare subjects on which such scholars have reached wide agreement: Justification defenses are said to apply when the actor's conduct was not morally wrongful; excuse defenses lie when the actor did engage in wrongful conduct but is not morally blameworthy. Consensus thus achieved, theorists have turned to subordinate questions, joining issue most notably on the question of whether justifications are subjective - turning upon the actor's reasons for acting - or objective - involving only facts independent of the actor's beliefs and motives. This article seeks to demonstrate that the prevailing consensus is wrong. Drawing on the well-known distinction between conduct rules and decision rules, it argues further that the distinction between justification and excuse in the criminal law is only this: A justified action is not criminal, whereas an excused defendant has committed a criminal act but is not punishable. To readers only marginally acquainted with the relevant literature, this claim may seem far from extravagant, for occasional statements to the same effect can be found in the case law and commentary. In fact, however, theorists have not appreciated just how this formulation of the distinction differs from the orthodox one, nor what consequences follow. This article attempts to remedy that defect. One lesson of a systematic investigation of these competing views, for instance, is that the long-running debate over whether justifications, properly understood, are subjective or objective is misconceived. This is a debate over policy, I argue, not - as it so often purports to be - a matter of conceptual analysis. More generally, this exploration into justification and excuse constitutes a case study in the complex relationship between legal and moral reasoning, and highlights the importance of distinguishing arguments that advance substantive value judgments from those that purport to analyze our conceptual apparatus. It may be that the latter enterprise is no less contestable or value-laden than the former (though perhaps it is). In any event, they are not the very same enterprise and a first step to clear thinking - in the criminal law and elsewhere - is to keep them distinct." @default.
• W1497508068 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1497508068 creator A5041449740 @default.
• W1497508068 date "2004-02-05" @default.
• W1497508068 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1497508068 title "Justification and Excuse, Law and Morality" @default.
• W1497508068 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W1497508068 type Work @default.
• W1497508068 sameAs 1497508068 @default.
• W1497508068 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1497508068 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1497508068 hasAuthorship W1497508068A5041449740 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C200113983 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C202565627 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C2777998198 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C111472728 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C121332964 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C138885662 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C144024400 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C15744967 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C17744445 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C190253527 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C199539241 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C200113983 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C202565627 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C2777998198 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C2780791683 @default.
• W1497508068 hasConceptScore W1497508068C62520636 @default.
• W1497508068 hasLocation W14975080681 @default.
• W1497508068 hasOpenAccess W1497508068 @default.
• W1497508068 hasPrimaryLocation W14975080681 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W1483948111 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W1565183297 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W175745339 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W1935395940 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W1964671124 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W1990298930 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2008396987 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2021396885 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2042953768 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2048444196 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2093152570 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2262350741 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2270465839 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2397331116 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W2768087180 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W30545180 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W3121247131 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W3124138602 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W3124257619 @default.
• W1497508068 hasRelatedWork W343594246 @default.
• W1497508068 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1497508068 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1497508068 magId "1497508068" @default.
• W1497508068 workType "article" @default.