Graduate studies at Western
Neuroethics 1 (3):205-212 (2008)
|Abstract||This article considers whether psychopaths should be held criminally responsible. After describing the positive law of criminal responsibility in general and as it applies to psychopaths, it suggests that psychopaths lack moral rationality and that severe psychopaths should be excused from crimes that violate the moral rights of others. Alternative forms of social control for dangerous psychopaths, such as involuntary civil commitment, are considered, and the potential legal implications of future scientific understanding of psychopathy are addressed.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christopher Ciocchetti (2003). Some Thoughts on Diverse Psychopathic Offenders and Legal Responsibility. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 10 (2):195-198.
David W. Shoemaker (2011). Psychopathy, Responsibility, and the Moral/Conventional Distinction. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (s1):99-124.
Stephen Finlay (2011). The Selves and the Shoemaker: Psychopaths, Moral Judgement, and Responsibility. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (s1):125–133.
Paul Litton (2010). Psychopathy and Responsibility Theory. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):676-688.
Heidi L. Maibom (2008). The Mad, the Bad, and the Psychopath. Neuroethics 1 (3):167-184.
Carl Elliott (1992). Diagnosing Blame: Responsibility and the Psychopath. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (2):199-214.
Patricia S. Greenspan (2003). Responsible Psychopaths. Philosophical Psychology 16 (3):417 – 429.
Paul Litton, Responsibility Status of the Psychopath: On Moral Reasoning and Rational Self-Governance.
Heidi Lene Maibom (2005). Moral Unreason: The Case of Psychopathy. Mind and Language 20 (2):237-57.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads161 ( #2,877 of 739,656 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,423 of 739,656 )
How can I increase my downloads?