Legal Theory 17 (3):171-208 (2011)

Authors
Ori Herstein
King's College London
Abstract
What is the clean hands defense (CHD) normatively about? Courts designate court integrity as the CHD's primary norm. Yet, while the CHD may at times further court integrity, it is not fully aligned with court integrity. In addition to occasionally instrumentally furthering certain goods (e.g., court legitimacy, judge integrity, deterrence), the CHD embodies two judicially undetected norms: retribution and tu quoque (“you too!”). Tu quoque captures the moral intuition that wrongdoers are in no position to blame, condemn, or make claims on others who are guilty of similar or related wrongdoing. The CHD shares the structure of the tu quoque: both are doctrines of standing that deflate the illocutionary force (and not the truth-value) of normative speech acts directed against wrongdoers by those guilty of similar or connected wrongdoing. The CHD also exhibits retributive logic: it sanctions plaintiffs by reason of their wrongdoing and manifests the retributive principle that “punishment must fit the crime.” Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011. Also available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LEG
Keywords Law and Philosophy  Legal Thoery  Retribution  Tu quoque  Clean hands  Remedies  Speech acts  Integrity
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s1352325211000152
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,913
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (1):5-20.
Hypocrisy, Moral Address, and the Equal Standing of Persons.R. Jay Wallace - 2010 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (4):307-341.
Standing for Something.Cheshire Calhoun - 1995 - Journal of Philosophy 92 (5):235-260.
Casting the First Stone: Who Can, and Who Can’T, Condemn the Terrorists?G. A. Cohen - 2006 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 58:113-136.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Dworkin on the Value of Integrity.Jonathan Crowe - 2007 - Deakin Law Review 12:167.
Speech Acts.Mitchell Green - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Guit, Anger, and Retribution.Raffaele Rodogno - 2010 - Legal Theory 16 (1):59-76.
The Varieties of Retributive Experience.Christopher Bennett - 2002 - Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):145-163.
Self-Interest and Integrity.David M. Holley - 2002 - International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (1):5-22.
Integrity and Struggle.Matthew Pianalto - 2012 - Philosophia 40 (2):319-336.
Protecting One’s Commitments.Sylvia Burrow - 2012 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):49-66.
Absolutely Clean Hands? Responsibility for What's Allowed in Refraining From What's Not Allowed.Suzanne Uniacke - 1999 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (2):189 – 209.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-10-21

Total views
96 ( #103,566 of 2,409,610 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #122,742 of 2,409,610 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes