15 found
Sort by:
  1. J. R. Edwards & A. P. Simester (2014). Wrongfulness and Prohibitions. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):171-186.
    This paper responds to Antje du-Bois Pedain’s discussion of the wrongfulness constraint on the criminal law. Du-Bois Pedain argues that the constraint is best interpreted as stating that φing is legitimately criminalised only if φing is wrongful for other-regarding reasons. We take issue with du-Bois Pedain’s arguments. In our view, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of legitimate criminalisation that φing is wrongful in du-Bois Pedain’s sense. Rather, it is a necessary (albeit insufficient) condition of legitimate criminalisation that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. A. P. Simester (2011). Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation. Hart Pub..
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. A. P. Simester (2010). Correcting Unjust Enrichments. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (3):579-598.
    This review article examines R Chambers, C Mitchell and J Penner (eds), Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Unjust Enrichment. These sophisticated essays suggest that a corrective, bipolar analysis of autonomous unjust enrichment is broadly right. However, the normative rationale is complex. From the plaintiff’s perspective, there are autonomy-based grounds for drawing an analogy to voidable rather than void property transactions. For similar reasons, the role of a corresponding-enrichment requirement primarily concerns identification of the defendant rather than establishing injustice.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. A. P. Simester & Andrew von Hirsch (2009). Remote Harms and Non-Constitutive Crimes. Criminal Justice Ethics 28 (1):89-107.
  5. A. P. Simester (2005). Is Strict Liability Always Wrong? In Andrew Simester (ed.), Appraising Strict Liability. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. A. P. Simester (2003). On Tax and Justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23 (4):711-726.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen Shute & A. P. Simester (eds.) (2002). Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part. Oxford University Press.
    Written by leading philosophers and lawyers from the United States and the United Kingdom, this collection of original essays offers new insights into the doctrines that make up the general part of the criminal law. It sheds theoretical light on the diversity and unity of the general part and advances our understanding of such key issues as criminalisation, omissions, voluntary actions, knowledge, belief, reckelssness, duress, self-defence, entrapment and officially-induced mistake of law.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. A. P. Simester & Stephen Shute (2002). On the General Part in Criminal Law. In Stephen Shute & A. P. Simester (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part. Oxford University Press. 1--12.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. A. P. Simester & Andrew von Hirsch (2002). Rethinking the Offense Principle. Legal Theory 8 (3):269-295.
    This paper explores the Offence Principle. It discusses whether two constraints, additional to the criteria stated in conventional analysis, ought to be met before the Offense Principle can be satisfied: (i) that offensive conduct must be a wrong, and (ii) that the conduct must also lead to harm. The nature of the Harm Principle, and its relationship to the Offense Principle, are also considered. The paper suggests that, even if all cases in which offense should be criminalized also involve harm, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. A. P. Simester (1996). Agency. Law and Philosophy 15 (2):159 - 181.
    In 1992, Law and Philosophy published an account of the paradigm case of intended action; one which gestured at, and did not pursue, an explanation of the requirement that a person be an agent in respect of her behaviour before that behaviour can constitute intended action. This paper completes that account by supplying an analysis of agency. The paper falls into three parts. It begins by casting doubt upon the possibility of specifying a causal account along the lines once envisaged (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. A. P. Simester (1996). Why Distinguish Intention From Foresight. In A. P. Simester & A. T. H. Smith (eds.), Harm and Culpability. Oxford University Press. 71--102.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. A. P. Simester & A. T. H. Smith (eds.) (1996). Harm and Culpability. Oxford University Press.
    The present volume draws together original and significant essays from a number of leading authorities which identify areas of the modern criminal law where there are significant conceptual difficulties. The project developed from a series of seminars in Cambridge University, in which leading Anglo-American philosophers, criminal lawyers and legal theorists explored subjects such as attempts, intention, justification, excuses, coercion, complicity, drug-dealing and criminal harm.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. A. P. Simester (1995). Why Omissions Are Special. Legal Theory 1 (3):311-335.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. A. P. Simester (1992). Mistakes in Defence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12 (2):295-310.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. A. P. Simester (1992). Paradigm Intention. Law and Philosophy 11 (3):235 - 263.
    Antony Duff's recent account of intended action has aroused considerable interest, particularly amongst English commentators, as an attempt to provide criteria that might be utilised by a judge or legislator. While Duff's analysis is instructive, and although it may be desirable to find conditions capturing the central notion of intention in action, this paper demonstrates that the specific conditions proposed by Duff are unsatisfactory. They require extensive modification in order to circumvent a number of difficulties presented here.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation