David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Although vicarious liability for the acts of co-conspirators is firmly entrenched in federal courts, no adequate theory explains how the act and intention of one conspirator can be attributed to another, simply by virtue of their criminal agreement. This Article argues that the most promising avenue for solving the Pinkerton paradox is an appeal to the collective intention of the conspiratorial group to commit the crime. Unfortunately, misplaced skepticism about the notion of a group will has prevented criminal scholars from embracing the notion of a conspiracy's collective intention to commit a crime. However, positing group intentions requires only that the criminal law recognize the rational relationships between individuals who decide to collectivize reason to pursue a common criminal goal; no burdensome theory of corporate animals with unified minds is required. After exploring the different rational structures that a conspiracy can have, the Article outlines the circumstances when vicarious liability could be justified. Specifically, liability must be limited to participants in tightly knit conspiracies who engage in the kind of common deliberation that is capable of yielding collective intentions. A further consequence of this theory is that liability must be restricted to acts that fall within the scope of the criminal plan, not just acts that should have been reasonably foreseeable to members of the conspiracy.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kevin M. O'Riordan, Clear Support or Cause for Suspicion? A Critique of Collective Scienter in Securities Litigation.
Douglas N. Husak (2010). The Philosophy of Criminal Law: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press.
Michael S. Moore (1993). Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and its Implications for Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Linda Radzik (2001). Collective Responsibility and Duties to Respond. Social Theory and Practice 27 (3):455-471.
Sara Rachel Chant & Zachary Ernst (2008). Epistemic Conditions for Collective Action. Mind 117 (467):549-573.
Shachar Eldar (2012). Holding Organized Crime Leaders Accountable for the Crimes of Their Subordinates. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2):207-225.
Jeff McMahon (2008). Collective Crime and Collective Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics 27 (1):4-12.
Charles Pigden (1995). Popper Revisited, or What is Wrong with Conspiracy Theories? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25 (1):3-34.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #252,134 of 1,796,173 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,533 of 1,796,173 )
How can I increase my downloads?