Understanding the Voluntary Act principle
In François Tanguay-Renaud & James Stribopoulos (eds.), Rethinking Criminal Law Theory: New Canadian Perspectives in the Philosophy of Domestic, Transnational, and International Criminal Law. Hart Publishing (2012)
|Abstract||In broad outline, the chapter proceeds as follows. As indicated above, the Voluntary Act Principle has two components. The first part, the act component, claims that criminal liability can be imposed on an accused only for the performance of an act. The second part, the voluntariness component, claims that criminal liability can be imposed on an accused only for the voluntary performance of an act. I will argue that both components of the Voluntary Act Principle are in need of amendment. I will first indicate why I think the act component of the Voluntary Act Principle is in tension with the criminal law’s own conception of the necessary conditions for criminal liability, and suggest a relatively simple fix. I will then argue that what is really at work in the voluntariness component of the Voluntary Act Principle is not so much voluntariness but rather what some authors have called the practical agency condition. In making my argument I will appeal to Harry Frankfurt’s hierarchical account of the will in the hopes of illuminating what it means for an action to belong to an agent, and thus, what it means for an agent to be responsible for something she has done.|
|Keywords||criminal law theory voluntary act principle actus reus|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Hause (2006). Aquinas on Non-Voluntary Acts. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (4):459-475.
Michael S. Moore (1993). Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and its Implications for Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Berent Enç (2003). How We Act: Causes, Reasons, and Intentions. Oxford University Press.
Douglas N. Husak (2010). The Philosophy of Criminal Law: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press.
Keith Hossack (2003). Consciousness in Act and Action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (3):187-203.
Holly Smith (2011). Non-Tracing Cases of Culpable Ignorance. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):115-146.
David Widerker (2000). ``Theological Fatalism and Frankfurt Counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):249-254.
N. Arpaly & T. Schroeder (2012). Deliberation and Acting for Reasons. Philosophical Review 121 (2):209-239.
María G. Navarro (2012). Discrecionalidad Administrativa. Eunomía. Revista En Cultura de la Legalidad 3:200-205.
Lene Bomann-Larsen (2013). Voluntary Rehabilitation? On Neurotechnological Behavioural Treatment, Valid Consent and (In)Appropriate Offers. Neuroethics 6 (1):65-77.
Sabine Maasen, Wolfgang Prinz & Gerhard Roth (eds.) (2003). Voluntary Action: Brains, Minds, and Sociality. Oxford University Press.
Benjamin Libet, C. Gleason, E. Wright & D. Pearl (1983). Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential). The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 106:623--664.
Pamela Hieronymi (2008). Responsibility for Believing. Synthese 161 (3):357-373.
Margaret Otlowski (1997). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. Clarendon Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-05-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?