Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (5):490 - 518 (2013)
AbstractABSTRACT The article begins by contrasting medical and moral views of addiction and how such views influence responsibility and policy analysis. It suggests that since addiction always involves action and action can always be morally evaluated, we must independently decide whether addicts do not meet responsibility criteria rather than begging the question and deciding by the label of ?disease? or ?moral weakness?. It then turns to the criteria for criminal responsibility and shows that the criteria for criminal responsibility, like the criteria for addiction, are all folk psychological. Therefore, any scientific information about addiction must be ?translated? into the law's folk psychological criteria. Distractions about responsibility are then quickly canvassed. Then it addresses the direct relation between addiction and criminal responsibility. It argues that most addicts retain sufficient rational and control capacities at the relevant times to be held responsible, especially for crimes that are not part of the definition of addiction itself. It suggests that there is good reason to excuse or mitigate addicts for the crimes of purchase and possession for personal use. It concludes by briefly considering what contemporary science can contribute to our understanding of addiction and agency
Similar books and articles
Addiction and Responsibility: A Survey of Opinions.Hans Olav Melberg, Edmund Henden & Olav Gjelsvik - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (5):558 - 570.
Philosophy, Addiction and Inquiry.Olav Gjelsvik - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (5):417 - 427.
Addiction: An Emergent Consequence of Elementary Choice Principles.Gene M. Heyman - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (5):428 - 445.
Addiction and Responsibility. [REVIEW]Joanna Korman - 2014 - Philosophical Psychology 27 (6):930-934.
Constructing a Theory and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote and Evaluate Autonomy in Addiction.Ayna B. Johansen, Farnad J. Darnell & Elisabeth Franzen - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (5):539 - 557.
Control and Responsibility in Addicted Individuals: What Do Addiction Neuroscientists and Clinicians Think?Adrian Carter, Rebecca Mathews, Stephanie Bell, Jayne Lucke & Wayne Hall - 2013 - Neuroethics 7 (2):205-214.
Addiction and Self-Determination: A Phenomenological Approach.Jann E. Schlimme - 2010 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (1):49-62.
Failed Agency and the Insanity Defence.Steve Matthews - 2004 - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 27:413-424.
Perception of Addiction and Its Effects on One's Moral Responsibility.Justin Caouette & David Boutland - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 4 (3):43-44.
Addiction as Defect of the Will: Some Philosophical Reflections. [REVIEW]R. Jay Wallace - 1999 - Law and Philosophy 18 (6):621–654.
On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility.Nicole A. Vincent - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
Reconciling the Criminal and Participatory Responsibilities of the Youth.Nicholas John Munn - 2012 - Social Theory and Practice 38 (1):139-159.
The Behavioural Economist and the Social Planner: To Whom Should Behavioural Welfare Economics Be Addressed?Robert Sugden - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (5):519 - 538.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Freedom and Belief, Galen Strawson. [REVIEW]Stephen L. White - 1991 - Philosophical Review 100 (1):119-122.