Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):79-95 (2008)
Criminalizing arson is both easy and hard. On the substantive merits, the conduct of damaging property by fire uncontroversially warrants criminal sanction. Indeed, punishment for such conduct is overdetermined, as the conduct threatens multiple harms of concern to the criminal law: both damage to property and injury to people. Yet the same multiplicity of harms or threats that makes it easy to criminalize arson (in the sense of deciding to proscribe the underlying behavior) also makes it hard to criminalize arson (in the sense of formulating the offense(s) that will address that behavior). This article asks whether adopting one or more arson offenses is the best way for criminal law to address the conduct in question, or whether that conduct is more properly conceptualized, criminalized, and punished as multiple distinct offenses
|Keywords||Arson Criminal codes Endangerment Grading of offenses Mischief Property damage Special part|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Arson and the Special Part.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):97-101.
Similar books and articles
Potholes on the Path to Purity: Gideon Yaffe's Overly Ambitious Attempt to Account for Criminal Attempts. [REVIEW]Alec Walen - 2012 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (3):383-386.
Why Criminal Law: A Question of Content? [REVIEW]Douglas Husak - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):99-122.
The British Experience of the Militant Opposition to the Agricultural Use of Animals.Keith Tester - 1989 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (3):241-251.
Guilty Mind or Guilty Brain? Criminal Responsibility in the Age of Neuroscience.David Hodgson - unknown
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads11 ( #400,729 of 2,164,272 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,039 of 2,164,272 )
How can I increase my downloads?