Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):71-78 (2009)

Authors
Alec Walen
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
Abstract
Doug Husak frames a worry that makes sense in the abstract, but in reality, there is not much to worry about. The thesis that intentions are irrelevant to permissibility (IIP) is a straw man. There are reasons to think that the moral significance of intentions is not properly registered in criminal law. But the moral basis for criticism is not nearly as extreme as the IIP, and the fixes are not that hard to make. Lastly, if they are not made, some people may not get the punishments they deserve, and there will be some extra inequities in the criminal law as a result. But these inequities are not so great that change must be made now. The moral categories that are used may be too crude, but they are also familiar and easy to work with, and that counts for something
Keywords Intention  Permissibility  Doctrine of double effect (DDE)  Criminal law  Moral philosophy  Mens rea  Culpability
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2009
DOI 10.1007/s11572-008-9064-3
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: 63,295
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Modern Moral Philosophy.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1958 - Philosophy 33 (124):1 - 19.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Willfully Blind for Good Reason.Deborah Hellman - 2009 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (3):301-316.
The Relevance of Intention to Criminal Wrongdoing.Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4):745-762.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-10-16

Total views
26 ( #419,980 of 2,448,702 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #447,803 of 2,448,702 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes