Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Iconoclasts? Who, Us? A Reply to Dolinko

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Dolinko (2011). Numbers in parenthesis refer to the Dolinko review.

  2. Dolinko himself cites Schulhofer (1974), Smith (1971), Kadish (1994), Becker (1974), Ashworth (1988), and Feinberg (1995).

  3. Feinberg (1970, p. 35), Moore (1997, pp. 236–46).

  4. Dolinko cites Hall (1963) and Williams (1961). We would add the recent converts, Moore and Hurd (2011).

  5. Alexander and Ferzan (2009, pp. 166–67).

  6. Moore and Hurd (2011).

  7. Moore and Hurd (2011).

  8. Alexander and Ferzan (2009, p. 83).

  9. Alexander and Ferzan (2009, pp. 84–85).

  10. Alexander and Ferzan (2009, p. 85).

  11. Alexander and Ferzan (2009, p. 34).

  12. Alexander and Ferzan (forthcoming).

  13. Alexander (1993, p. 61) notes “the most plausible moral theory underlying common intuitions about self-defense is one that would be sensitive to, among other things, (1) number of deaths, (2) relative moral fault, (3) fair allocation of risks and incentives, and (4) nonappropriation of others.”

  14. Alexander (1993).

References

  • Alexander, L. (1993). Self-defense, justification, and excuse. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(1), 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, L., & Ferzan, K. K. (forthcoming). Danger: The ethics of preemptive action. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law.

  • Alexander, L., Ferzan, K. K., with Morse, S. J. (2009). Crime and culpability: A theory of criminal law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (1988). Criminal attempt and the role of resulting harm under the code, and in the common law. Rutgers Law Journal, 19, 725–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. (1974). Criminal attempts and the theory of the law of crimes. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 3(3), 262–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolinko, D. (2011). Review of “crime and culpability: A theory of criminal law”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 6, 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1970). Problematic responsibility in law and morals. In Doing and deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Feinberg, J. (1995). Equal punishment for failed attempts: Some bad but instructive arguments against it. Arizona Law Review, 37, 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. (1963). Negligent behavior should be excluded from penal liability. Columbia Law Review, 63(4), 632–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadish, S. H. (1994). The criminal law and the luck of the draw. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84, 679–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. S. (1997). Placing blame: A general theory of the criminal law. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. S., & Hurd, H. M. (2011). Punishing the awkward, the stupid, the weak, and the selfish: The culpability of negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5, 147–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulhofer, S. J. (1974). Harm and punishment: A critique of emphasis on the results of conduct in the criminal law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 122(6), 1497–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. C. (1971). The element of chance in criminal liability. Criminal Law Review, 1971, 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (1961). Criminal law: The general part (2nd ed.). London: Stevens & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. San Diego, CA, USA

    Larry Alexander

  2. Camden, NJ, USA

    Kimberly Kessler Ferzan

Authors
  1. Larry Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly Kessler Ferzan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly Kessler Ferzan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alexander, L., Ferzan, K.K. Iconoclasts? Who, Us? A Reply to Dolinko. Criminal Law, Philosophy 6, 281–287 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9143-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9143-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation